The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years, Defendant C and Defendant D, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of additional collection charges and by misapprehending the legal principles (Defendant A, D) based on the calculation of the total sales amount without considering the benefits accrued to the Defendants and the amount disbursed as input expenses, such as manufacturing cost, etc., and thereby making all of them collected from the Defendants as the basis for the calculation of the additional collection amount.

B. Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A, B: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, Defendant C, and D: One and half years, three years of suspended execution, three years of social service, and 200 hours)

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding criminal proceeds in addition to the collection of criminal proceeds in relevant legal principles, even if the cost incurred by an offender to obtain criminal proceeds is merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006). In a case where multiple persons jointly obtain profits in violation of the Trademark Act, only the allocated amount, i.e., the profit actually accrued, should be individually confiscated and collected, and where it is impossible to determine the distributed amount, the amount equally divided shall be confiscated and collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do794, Mar. 9, 200; 2007Do635, Nov. 30, 2007).