The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court’s determination on the grounds of sentencing and the crime of violating the Trademark Act committed by the Defendant committed a massive manufacture of fake cosmetics by sharing their roles in a planned and systematic manner, and distributing considerable parts of them, thereby infringing upon the legitimate trademark right holder’s right, and at the same time impairing the market economy and impairing the consumer’s trust, which is not good, and, even if considering the fact that there were adverse effects on the consumers who used the cosmetics manufactured and distributed by the Defendant, the amount of fraud damage of the instant case was returned at the investigation stage, and the amount of KRW 267 million out of the amount of fraud damage of the instant case was returned at the investigation stage, and the Defendant appears to have agreed to pay the part acquired by the Defendant to the victim out of the remainder of damage, and the degree of the Defendant’s participation is somewhat weak

In light of the circumstances of the case, considering that D, E, an accomplice, appears to have led more than the accomplice, and that the defendant has no same criminal record, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is ruled again after pleading as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016); Article 30 of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively including the fact of infringement of trademark rights and each trademark), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; and each choice of imprisonment, respectively,

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to increase concurrent crimes.