The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The period during which the Defendant assisted C to commit the instant crime by aiding and abetting C is limited to five months from January 2010 to June 15, 2010 as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment. After being controlled by the Chinese public peace on June 15, 2010, the Defendant was absent from the co-offender relationship and was not involved in the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by mistake.

2) AD operated by the Defendant on the charge of the crime 2014 senior group 10340 of the lower judgment’s decision did not handle counterfeit goods. At the time, AW, who had been an employee of the Defendant, arbitrarily received a request for a forged goods distribution from AH, AI, etc. at the level of customer attraction, brought about delivery through another logistics company and brought profits therefrom, and the Defendant did not take part in it at all.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (the assertion that was filed later, or the subsequent determination was made) Defendant paid KRW 30 million from C in relation to the instant crime, but the said money was used as a part of Chinese public policy, and there is no substantial benefit accrued to Defendant, and thus, the calculation of the surcharge of the lower judgment is unlawful.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, fine 200 million won, and additional collection) is too unreasonable, and 300,000 won per day of the conversion of the penalty into the exchange penalty is contrary to the equity among the accomplices.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts in the lower judgment: (a) the Defendant alleged that this part of the facts were alleged to be erroneous in the lower court; and (b) the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant was subject to four-time investigations by the Prosecutor’s Office; and (c) the Defendant was subject to three-time investigations.