All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding the fact that Defendants 1 gave up his own author’s property right or transferred to G and D with respect to the violation of the Copyright Act, the Defendants’ publication of the E pastor’s book, etc. does not infringe on the author’s property right.

② As to Defendant B’s violation of the Trademark Act, it is difficult to view “R”, “S”, “T”, “U”, etc. as similar to “G”, which is the registered service list. The effect of “ Q” does not extend to the registered trademark pursuant to Article 90(1)2 of the Trademark Act, and there was no purpose of unfair competition as stipulated under Article 90(3) of the Trademark Act.

③ As to the violation of the Act on the Collection and Use of Donations, D constitutes a religious organization under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Collection and Use of Donations (hereinafter “Donations Act”), and as such, there was no violation of the above Act, since an application for registration was rejected.

(4) Defendant A did not have the intention to assist him.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part concerning Defendant A’s acquittal of the grounds) (the part concerning Defendant A’s acquittal of the grounds) recognized that Defendant A committed each of the crimes of this case in collusion with Defendant B, but recognized only the liability for aiding and abetting Defendant A, and acquitted Defendant A of the reasons for the instant charges

2) Undue sentencing (for the Defendants, each sentence sentenced by the lower court) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) In full view of the materials submitted by the Defendants on the violation of the Copyright Act, the Defendants renounced their author’s property rights, or transferred or bequeathed them to AB church or G, or D.

It is difficult to see the accident Emert, even if he did not own it before life.