The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the original court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 30 million and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant did not commit the instant crime; (b) the Defendant sold counterfeit goods through the Internet shopping mall for a considerable period of time; (c) the Defendant appears to have obtained profits therefrom; and (d) the act of infringing trademark rights is not only impairing the business reputation of the trademark right holder but also impairing the sound market order, the Defendant may not be held liable corresponding thereto.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not have any previous course; (b) the Defendant seriously against each of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant paid all evaded duties, etc.; (d) the Defendant voluntarily closed down the F after the instant case; and (e) was engaged in the establishment of a shower program by setting up the KAH, which is an an advisory company, and thus, the risk of re-offending seems to be low; and (e) the Defendant supports his mother who is in the state of cancer after the divorce with his wife, and is supporting her mother who is in the state of cancer with her mother.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 93 of the Trademark Act as to facts constituting an offense (limited to the fact of selling or keeping for sale by registered trademark and keeping for sale by registered trademark), Articles 270 (1) 1 and 241 (1) of the Customs Act (limited to the fact of evading customs duties);

1. Articles 40 and 50 (Mutual Crimes of Violating the Trademark Act due to Safekeeping of Goods for Sale) of the Commercial Competition Act;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;