The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Trademark Act due to sale among the facts charged in the instant case, there is no evidence to prove the confession of the Defendant.

B. The first instance sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (fine 10 million won, confiscation) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, reinforcement evidence against a confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confession of the defendant is true, not processed, it can be indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. In addition, if confession and reinforcement evidence are consistent with each other, and criminal facts can be acknowledged as a whole as evidence of guilt, it is sufficient to establish evidence of guilt.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1897 delivered on January 8, 2002, etc.). The Defendant confessioned this part of the facts charged from the investigation agency to the trial court, and does not seem to have any circumstance to suspect that the confession was processed, or was forced. As such, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, namely, the place of the offense, the protocol of seizure and the list of seizure, and the list of investigation result reports, are sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the confession of the Defendant is true.

The defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the record of being punished for the same crime, and there are not a few quantities of the forged trademark that the Defendant sold or stored for sale purposes.

However, the defendant is considered to have committed the crime in this case for the purpose of maintaining his livelihood by making up for the treatment expenses of his father who is invested in the old age.

In addition, records and arguments, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, economic condition, background and details of the crime, results and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be made.