The judgment below

Of the defendants, the part of the defendant is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The summary of the reasoning of the appeal is that the judgment of the court of the original instance constitutes a case where the misunderstanding of facts has affected the judgment, and that the punishment prescribed by the court of the original instance (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the facts charged [criminal record] Defendant B was sentenced to four years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Central District Court on June 17, 2011, and completed the execution of the sentence on December 2, 2014.

[Criminal facts] The Defendants are the employees of LOUIS VUTN, who are delegated with the authority to control trademark infringement crimes by LOUIS companies (LOIS).

On September 10, 2015, at around 16:30 on September 10, 2015, the Defendants found eight parts of the above clothes display stand, etc. on the premise that in the G clothing operated by the victim F, the injured Party F, who was registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office, would secure evidence to conduct an act of violating the Trademark Act that sells the same bags as the well-known trademark registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to search a structure managed by the injured party.

3. The lower court determined that the testimony of the witness H, I, and J was admitted as evidence of guilt.

However, according to Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the hearsay statement, the contents of which are F's statements, among all of these statements, cannot be admitted as evidence.

Examining the witness F’s statement as evidence by the prosecutor with regard to the part that the Defendant found eight parts after the display stand in the space where a spawn is in danger of spawn, the statement is consistent, but the spawnity is insufficient and the part that was mixed by the division of a little degree of division is also found, and credibility is low.

F did not witness the process.

There is a part that is considered not to have been collected by the defendant, but rather from the bags he he he has accumulated.

It is reasonable for the defendant to find eight places after the display stand, etc.