The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The decision of the court below (defendant A: imprisonment of one and half years, confiscation and collection, imprisonment of one year, confiscation and collection, and confiscation and collection) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendants, such as the following: (a) the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak in terms of infringing the rights of a registered trademark holder and disturbing market trading order; (b) the quantity of forged goods supplied by the Defendants or stored for sale is very large; and (c) the Defendants’ act of infringing trademark rights (related to 2016 high group 513 high group 2016 high group 2016 lower group 1566) committed without being involved in the act of infringing trademark rights of the Defendants around June 2015.

However, the Defendants led to the confession of all the crimes of this case and reflects the mistake, and there is no criminal conviction for the Defendants. In particular, Defendant A was an initial offender who had no criminal record, and the forged goods supplied by the Defendants were used as free gifts of a machine extracted from a single name, and the appearance of which is somewhat bad compared to the refined goods, thereby making consumers misunderstand it as refined, or having a particular impact on the demand of refined goods sold by the trademark right holder.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that Defendant A led to the purchase and sale of the infringing goods of trademark rights, the degree of participation of Defendant B is insignificant compared to Defendant A, the social ties between the Defendants are clear and the family members to support, the Defendants appears to have hours of self-esteem while living in custody for three to six months due to the instant case, and the surcharge imposed by the lower court was fully paid, and other various sentencing conditions such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, means and method of crime, and circumstances after the crime are considered, the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is reasonable, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.