beta
Text
All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Prosecutor ① The lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds by misunderstanding the following facts.
(1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor in the part 1, 2, and 4 (Crimes by the Defendants) of the lower judgment 2016 High Order 775 charges, the fact that the Defendants damaged or modified the indications for the purpose of causing confusion as to the country of origin of imported goods, thereby deceiving the owners of restaurant business as if they were domestic origin.
(2) In light of the following facts: (a) Defendant D led Defendant D to his criminal act at the police investigation stage; (b) sales volume and sales date of the head fish supplied by Defendant D to a customer coincide with the import volume and import date of the head fish of the import place; and (c) the Defendant damaged or modified the mark for the purpose of causing confusion with the origin mark of the import place; and (d) by deceiving the head of the restaurant business of the import place as if he were a domestic origin, the fact that the head of the import place, the origin of which belongs to the place of origin, is sufficiently recognized.
(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: 10 months) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2) The lower court convicted Defendant A (guilty in the lower judgment) of this part of the facts charged against the Defendant by misunderstanding the following facts.
(1) The lower court’s judgment 2016 High Order 1992 (the fraud against the victim L) Defendant received 750 km from the U.S. heading 750 km, which asked S as to whether it is possible to sell it, and did not have acquired it by deceiving the victim L by receiving the U.S. heading language.
(2) The lower court’s judgment 2016 High Order 1992 (the fraud against the victims) part of Article 2 of the 2016 High Order 192 (the fraud by the victims) was merely introduced by the victims and R, and the victims received the intermediate domestic production income.