The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too heavy (1.5 million won by the lower court).

2. The crime of this case, however, is an element for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant in that it infringes on the right of the registered trademark right holder and disturbs the market trading order.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant was the first offender without any previous conviction; (b) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant was in contravention of the recognition of and against all of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant was operating a street while supporting the married children after the divorce; (b) there are circumstances to consider the instant crime as the income did not reach the living expenses; (c) the Defendant’s profits derived from the instant crime appears to have not been significant; and (d) the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that the consumers who purchased goods from the Defendant knew of the fact that goods were not serious goods in light of the price of sales, such as the so-called “Mano” and “Mano,” etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable

3. Since the defendant's appeal is with merit, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is ruled again as follows.

Criminal facts

Since the summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and Articles of 93 (Selection of Fine)

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Confiscation of Article 97-1 (1) of the Commercial Act;