All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and the appeals filed by the Defendants A and B are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below against the defendants (hereinafter "Defendant A": one year and half years of imprisonment; one year and two months of confiscation; one year and one year and two months of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution in one year; two years of suspended execution in 10 months; one year of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution in 10 months; and two years of suspended execution and confiscation) asserted that ① the prosecutor excessively unfluened so that it is unfair, while the defendant A and B are too unfair.

2. The crime of this case is committed in violation of the rights of the owner of the trademark right and the owner of the design right and evades taxes, which may cause harm to the health of consumers due to the unsanitaryness of the process of manufacturing fake goods, and thus, the nature of the crime is not weak, and the period of the crime is not only a long term, and the quantity of the fake goods manufactured is also considerable.

On the other hand, there are more favorable circumstances that can be considered such as Defendant C and D did not focus on the degree of participation in the instant crime, Defendant A and B confession all the crimes since the police, and their cooperation in the investigation, and the fact that all the Defendants have no particular criminal history.

In addition, considering all the facts that there is no change in the sentencing conditions for the Defendants compared to the original judgment, together with the background leading up to the instant crime, each Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, family environment, etc., and all other circumstances leading to the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentencing with respect to Defendant A and B is too heavy, or that the lower court’s sentencing with respect to Defendant C and D is too unflued, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants and the appeal against the Defendants A and B are without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.