The judgment below

All parts of the defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, who was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts (as to the part of paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the judgment of the first instance), Defendant A, at the time of receiving a request for the manufacture of the fake cream from Defendant B for the first time, knew that he was using a subcontract from the trademark right holder at the time of receiving a request for the manufacture of the fake cream, and Defendant A did not know that he was manufacturing the fake cream. Thus, Defendant A did not have

Shebly, the first deliberation punishment against Defendant A (a year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (the illegal Defendant B, on the second trial date of the appellate trial, stated that he withdrawn the part on the grounds of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles among the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is to be determined only on Defendant B’s wrongful assertion of sentencing).

Defendant

The first deliberation type for B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

검사 ⑴ 피고인 C에 대하여 ㈎ 사실 오인( 무 죄 부분에 대하여) 피고인 C의 변소는 신빙성이 없고, 피고인 C의 동종 범죄 전력, 공급한 부자재의 형태 등을 종합하면, 피고인 C에 대한 이 부분 상표권 침해 행위가 충분이 인정된다.

㈏ 양형 부당( 유죄 부분에 대하여) 피고인 C에 대한 제 1 심의 형( 징역 6월, 집행유예 2년, 사회봉사 80 시간) 이 너무 가벼워서 부당하다.

Shebly, against Defendant D, the first deliberation sentence (unfair sentencing) on Defendant D (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service time of 80 hours) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination:

가. 피고인 A의 주장에 관한 판단 ⑴ 사실 오인 주장에 대하여 ㈎ 피고인은 제 1 심에서도 이 부분 사실 오인 주장과 같은 취지의 주장을 하였고, 이에 대하여 제 1 심은 제 1 심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 다음과 같은 사정들을 인정한 후, 최초로 마유 크림 제조를 의뢰 받을 당시 피고인 A에게 상표권 위반의 고의가 있었음을...