All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months; two years and six months of suspended execution; community service order for 80 hours; additional collection for 5,75,000 won; imprisonment for one year and six months; imprisonment for two years and six months; imprisonment for two years and six months; imprisonment for 80 hours of community service; additional collection for 27,877,500 won; and Defendant C: imprisonment for one year; imprisonment for two years of suspended execution; additional collection for 27,877,500 won).

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes, and Defendant A and B did not have the same criminal record and Defendant C is recognized as the primary criminal.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime over about one year and five months, and the Defendants’ actual profits acquired by committing the instant crime are also reasonable.

In particular, the crime of violation of the Trademark Act is an infringement of the legitimate trademark right holder’s right, and at the same time it disturbs the market economy order and damages the consumer’s trust.

In addition, taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, occupation, and family relationship (in the case of Defendant A, the spouse who suffers from the crypian disease and the c’s suffering from the crypian disease), Defendant B and C have given birth to their children on January 2018), economic situation is difficult, and the degree of participation in the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not heavy.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.