The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s imprisonment (two years) is too unreasonable when considering the following: (b) the purpose of this case was to ensure the risk of the occurrence of an accident due to the sale of “a even corner”, and “a even corner” sold or kept by the Defendant was not so large that safety is not at issue; (c) the Defendant’s “a even corner wheel caps” is not kept for the purpose of sale to the consumers who intend to install them on the vehicle; (d) the injury suffered by the trademark right holder due to the instant crime; (e) the injury suffered by the Defendant was insignificant by the Defendant; and (e) the circumstances of the Defendant’s difficult home are considered: (e) imprisonment with labor (two years).

2. Considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct determination under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the following factors: (a) the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing criteria, etc.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court recognized and against the instant crime, the Defendant does not seem to have been aware of and purchased by the consumers for the goods on which the forged trademark sold by the Defendant was attached as refined goods. The crime of violating the Trademark Act infringes upon the legitimate trademark right holder’s right, and at the same time, damages the market economy order and damages the consumer’s trust.