The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

2,998,487,851 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles ① Of the deposit details of the Defendant against the Defendant, the amount generated from the crime is not money, and thus, it should be excluded from the calculation of the additional collection charge. ② Since the total purchase cost of the aforementioned manufacturing product is approximately KRW 2.7 billion, only the net profit from the calculation of the additional collection charge should be additionally collected; ③ KRW 242,816,00 of the sales price of the forged product embezzled by Co-Defendant A by Co-Defendant A in the first instance trial is excluded from the calculation of the additional collection charge. The lower court’s collection of KRW 3,241,30,851, which is the total sales price of counterfeit products, is unlawful.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the calculation of the surcharge . Of the deposited money of the Defendant, “BD and BE” was already excluded through the amendment of the indictment in the first instance trial. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the remainder of the deposited money by the Defendant is recognized as the deposit details due to the transaction of counterfeit goods. Thus, this part of the Defendant’

2) The property resulting from the act of infringement of trademark rights under Article 93 of the Trademark Act is criminal proceeds as stipulated in Article 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and is subject to confiscation or collection as stipulated in Articles 8 through 10 of the same Act. The sales proceeds paid by the defendant in return for the sale of counterfeit goods are the property resulting from the act of infringement of trademark rights and are subject to confiscation.

On the other hand, in order to obtain criminal proceeds in collecting criminal proceeds, the cost spent by the offender was spent from criminal proceeds.

Even if it is nothing more than a method of consuming criminal proceeds, it shall not be deducted from criminal proceeds to be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006, etc.).