The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Trademark Act among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, without recognizing the items, quantity, and forgery of panty 2,270 marks attached with the trademark “CALVKKEIN” and 734 marks attached with the trademark “TOMYHIGGER” (hereinafter “instant forged goods”), requested the court that actually runs the import clearance procedure to withhold customs clearance for the Defendant Company I (the Defendant’s company acting on behalf of the Defendant to conduct import clearance procedure).

Nevertheless, as a result of the J’s customs clearance process for the instant forged goods, the instant forged goods were imported under the name of the Defendant, so the Defendant did not have any intention to commit a violation of the Trademark Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of

B. Even if the Defendant’s conviction on the whole facts charged of this case is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (fine of 6 million won, confiscation) is too unreasonable in light of the various sentencing conditions of this case.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.

The lower court declared that all articles seized by the Defendant (Evidence 1 through 5) fall under trademark rights or exclusive license infringement, or trademarks and packaging obtained by such infringement, or manufacturing machinery or materials provided to be used mainly for the production of such infringed articles (Article 97-2(1) of the Trademark Act).

However, according to the records, ① evidence No. 1, which was seized from the defendant, was merely a table prepared by the defendant after the defendant completed the crime of violating the Customs Act as stated in the judgment of the court below, ② evidence No. 2, the defendant import Titts 1,464 from Vietnam on July 12, 2013.