The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (7 million won in penalty) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant: (a) imported a total of 104 non-regular wheel chairs and sold some of them; and (b) imported and sold the same wheel chairs even after the search and seizure took place to the police; and (c) imported and sold the same wheel chairs again after the search and seizure took place; and (d) received punishment for the suspension of execution on account of the violation of the Trademark Act.

However, the defendant acknowledges and reflects his mistake.

It is necessary to consider equity between the case and the case where the crime of this case and the crime of violation of the above Trademark Act, which became final and conclusive.

The judgment below

There is no change in sentencing factors after the sentence.

In light of this, the judgment of the court below is within the reasonable scope of the discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unfasible. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion is rejected.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below]

1. As the pertinent legal provisions and the choice of punishment regarding facts constituting an offense are apparent that the term “trademark” in the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 14033, Feb. 29, 2016) is a clerical error in the context of “the former Trademark Act”, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.