The judgment below
The conviction part against Defendant B, C, and D, and Defendant E, I, N, and P.O.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. From the judgment of the court below, Defendant A, Inc. 1 is erroneous as to the facts of Defendant A, Inc. 1) the trademark use agreement between Defendant A, I, and J was not concluded at the final stage, and the trademark use agreement between Defendant A, I, and J did not have the right to use the trademark.
Rather, Defendant A applied for provisional disposition against I and J to prohibit the use of a trademark.
Therefore, Defendant A did not have a public-private partnership relationship with I and J, and even if there was a public-private partnership relationship, Defendant A does not bear the responsibility as a joint principal offender.
In addition, insofar as Defendant A did not establish a crime of violating the Trademark Act on this part, both punishment provisions on Defendant L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) cannot be applied.
B) Fraud (2016 high order 7895) is not a loan but a share transfer price, and thus, it does not mean that the Defendant defrauds money by deceiving the victim.
2) The sentence sentenced by the court below to the unjust defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of three years and six months, Defendant L: fine of 50 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendants B and M1) Violation of the Trademark Act (A) (2015 high group 8123) AB has a legitimate right to use the instant registered trademark, and the victim company alone has a trademark right.
The application of trademark rights at will constitutes abuse of trademark rights.
In addition, the Defendant concluded a manufacture and sale agency contract with the belief that L is the right holder of the registered trademark of this case, and there is no conclusive intention as well as dolusent intention as to trademark infringement.
B. Unless Defendant B commits a violation of the Trademark Act, both punishment provisions on Defendant M (hereinafter referred to as “M”) cannot be applied.
B) The Defendant did not raise an accusation against A (2016 order 5788).