All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the sales proceeds themselves cannot be confiscated under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter “Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds”), the full amount equivalent to the sales proceeds can be collected.

It is reasonable to see that the defendant sold counterfeit goods at the level of 1/10 of the selling price of authentic goods.

The judgment of the court below that did not impose an additional collection of KRW 1,295,311,00 equivalent to 1/10 of the selling price of the authentic goods is too uneasable and unfair.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of collection under the Act on Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment as to the Prosecutor’s argument of collection is to deprive the Prosecutor of unlawful profits and prevent him from holding it. On the other hand, it does not require strict proof. However, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to collection, it may not be collected, and since the amount of collection under Article 10 of the Act on Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds is voluntary, whether it is to be collected should be left to the court’s discretion.

The defendant sold 1/10 of the selling price of refined goods at an investigative agency (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451 Decided June 14, 2007).

However, considering the Defendant’s statement from the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant’s 1/10 of the selling price of the fixed goods was identified, rather than the Defendant’s 1/10 of the cost brought in from China, and the phrase “ approximately 1/10 of the selling price of the fixed goods” appears to be merely an answer to the investigative agency’s inquiry to the effect that the phrase “1/10 of the selling price of the fixed goods” would be an opposite degree.

In addition, the results of this Court's factual inquiry about R Co., Ltd.