beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted the Defendants of the instant facts charged (excluding the part of innocence and innocence).
The lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who keeps another’s property” in embezzlement, “the stolen property” and “faith” in the crime of acquiring stolen property, “the act of deception” in fraud, interpretation of disposal documents, and ownership ownership.
2. The prosecutor's appeal is examined.
The lower court is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act constitutes an infringement of trademark rights under Article 66(1)2 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016).
Then, the Court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the part of the violation of the Trademark Act, which was prosecuted as a requirement for composition.
The judgment below
In light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the use of trademark under trademark law and the act of infringing trademark rights, contrary to what
The gist of the prosecutor's remaining grounds for appeal is as follows: according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the market price of the clothes embezzled by Defendant B reaches KRW 3.3 billion, and the part of the above defendant's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is fully convicted; however, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence and found the defendant not guilty
However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.
The judgment below
In light of the record.