The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, and D Co., Ltd. 1), Defendant A and D Co., Ltd. were not involved in the selection of smuggling goods, and Defendant A did not know about the content, quantity, items, and value of the smuggling imported on April 20, 2019, because Defendant A did not know about the fact that the aforementioned imported goods were in violation of the Trademark Act, and only did the role of transporting the smuggling imported goods to Incheon warehouse at the open port of the domestic customs office, and Defendant C immediately brought them to Incheon warehouse.

Defendant

A was unable to hear on April 20, 2019 on the basis of the calculation of transportation charges from Defendant C, the volume of the smuggling imported on April 20, 2019, other than that of 4CBM, which is the basis for the calculation of transportation charges, from which products were entered, and prior to that, it was known that Defendant C was in the same way as Defendant C passed, and in particular, the fact that the visibility was composed of forgery was not known and did not know.

As such, insofar as there is no criminal intent to commit a violation of the Trademark Act against Defendant A, both punishment provisions on the violation of the Trademark Act does not apply to Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) which is the representative of the said Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A and D guilty of violating the Trademark Act by importing forged visibility on April 20, 2019 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A and D, thereby infringing the trademark rights holder’s merchandise coupons. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconceptions

2) On December 13, 2018, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles pertaining to calculation of the amount of additional collection by Defendant A, the quantity and type of goods imported on February 9, 2019, and March 2, 2019 cannot be verified since all were distributed during the market.

Nevertheless, the lower court based on Defendant B and C’s statement, based on the volume, quantity, and value of the goods discovered on April 20, 2019, by analogying the contents of the crime by each date.