The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that, even after the first crackdown, the Defendant continuously sold a well-known book, a chief executive officer, or a manager, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s punishment of the lower court (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment and eight hours of social service) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The act of infringement of trademark rights is not only impairing the business reputation of the trademark right holder, but also disturbing the sound market order, and thus the quality of the crime cannot be light. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant displayed a name book, a name book, a name book, and a name book on the apartment to avoid the control, and the fact that the defendant continued to commit the crime without being good even after the first crackdown, a warning to respond to the defendant is needed.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant had a duty to supply to an investigative agency as a principal offender, and that the defendant does not sell a master-person or a member of the family council who is called a "representative or a member of the family council", and the defendant was in a separate relation with the husband and was in an economic difficult situation, and as a result, a large amount of "representative or a member of the family council" products were stolen by the first control of the investigative agency, and when both a "representative or a member of the family council" products were seized by the first control of the investigative agency, there are some circumstances that may be somewhat considering the motive and circumstances of the crime, even if the defendant borrowed money from the deceased in the first instance, even if he borrowed it to the deceased in the view of the intention to complete the payment. Moreover, considering the fact that the defendant is currently in a marital relationship with the husband, and that the children who are high school students should care alone, the defendant's age, character and environment, etc., the judgment of the court below does not seem to be too able to sentence.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.