2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the instant crime, and the Defendant’s display forged goods are merely five points and the damage actually suffered by the trademark right holder due to the instant crime appears not to be significant.

However, the crime of this case is committed not only undermining the business reputation of a trademark right holder, but also undermining the sound market order, and thus, the quality of the crime is not good; the defendant has been punished six times by a fine; the defendant has been making efforts to recover the damage of a trademark right holder; the court below seems to have reduced a fine compared to the summary order in consideration of the above circumstances; the court below did not change the circumstances that may be considered in the grounds for sentencing in the trial; and there are no changes in the circumstances that may be considered in the grounds for sentencing in the trial; and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, means and consequence after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.

[However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the term "trademark Act" in the application of the law of the reasoning of the judgment below shall be corrected by each "former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016)".