beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the portions cited in paragraph (2). Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The second letter of the judgment of the court of first instance shall consist of two pages 17 of the second letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, "representative director" to "representative director".
The following shall be added to 8 pages 13 of the judgment of the first instance:
In the event that the seized articles subject to confiscation are likely to be destroyed, damaged, decomposed, or significantly reduced in value, the prosecutor may sell them and keep the proceeds therefrom (Articles 219 and 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 65(1) of the Regulations on the Affairs of Seized Articles by the Prosecution). A prosecutor must take such measures as above, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the possibility of confiscation, the degree of corruption and deterioration, the possibility of a decrease in value in the future, and the amount of the cost of custody, etc., and such measures should not be taken only for the seized articles subject to necessary confiscation. Accordingly, the defendant's argument that it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion that the punishment of this case does not fall under the seized articles subject to necessary confiscation, and thus, it cannot be subject to sale or storage of consideration is written as follows.
3. The amount of damages of the Plaintiff Company due to the loss of the value of the goods of the molds of this case is reasonable to view the market price at the time of the expiration of the period for distribution of the molds of this case. However, in this case where the Plaintiff Company bears the burden of proving the market price, the reasonable market price of the molds of this case is determined solely on the ground that the judgment of innocence was finalized prior to the judgment of innocence of the Plaintiff Company.
(i)the AFFF and the AFF (hereinafter referred to as “DF”);
the amount to be paid after being supplied and being paid with molds 100% in the Republic of Korea.