The judgment below

Among them, the part of confiscation against Defendant A shall be reversed.

The Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court did not render a declaration of forfeiture, even though the seized articles provided or intended to be provided for the instant criminal acts, as those articles under Articles 2019, 718, 718, and 201, subparagraphs 1 and 6 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2019, 718, and 2019, 88, 1 through 6 of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office 2019, were not subject to forfeiture. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to forfeiture and by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant A of unfair sentencing is so unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court on the Defendant A of unfair

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Article 236 (1) of the Trademark Act provides that "a trademark, packaging or goods offered for an infringement of trademark rights or exclusive license under Article 230 of the same Act, or obtained by such infringement (hereafter referred to as "infringed goods" in this paragraph), and manufacturing machinery or materials offered for the main purpose of the production of such infringed goods shall be confiscated." Thus, the court that satisfies the requirements must confiscate them.

According to records, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2019Mo718 and evidence Nos. 1 through 6 of Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 2019Mo88, such as Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 2019Mo718, and Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 2019Mo88, which

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which omitted the confiscation of the above confiscated articles is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the necessary confiscation, and the prosecutor's above assertion pointing this out has merit

B. We also examine the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, against the Defendants.