The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

No. 1 through 15, 17 through 103, of seized evidence.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the court below, ex officio, deemed the defendant's crime of this case to constitute a separate crime of violation of the Trademark Act, and dealt with it as substantive concurrent crimes. However, in the case where several trademark rights are infringed by the defendant's act of storage like the defendant's crime of this case, several offenses of violation of the Trademark Act by the infringed registered trademark are established, but it is reasonable to view that each crime of this case constitutes an ordinary concurrent crimes. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the 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. Article 93 of the Trademark Act relating to facts constituting an offense (limited to each infringed registered trademark);

1. Articles 40 and 50 (Mutual Violation of the Trademark Act) of the Commercial Competition Act;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The defendant's crime of this case is committed in favor of the defendant, under the circumstances that are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's error in sentencing under Article 97-2 (1) of the Trademark Act is recognized, and the benefit gained from the crime of this case is considered not to be greater than the scale of crime, and the defendant has two daughters in the age to support.