beta
Text
The judgment below
Among the parts against Defendant A, B, and C, the violation of the Trademark Act on October 11, 201.
Reasons
I. Summary of the grounds for appeal
1. A prosecutor does not state in the grounds of appeal as to the violation of the Trademark Act due to forgery 2,383 imports on October 11, 201, among the acquitted portion of the lower judgment. In the case of the acquittal portion for the above reasons, the prosecutor, who was found guilty on October 11, 201, is exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, and thus, the judgment of the lower court should be followed.
Defendant
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the violation of the Customs Act, the violation of the Trademark Act, the defendant B, the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's statement at the court of original instance, although the defendant A could fully recognize the fact that he had closely imported counterfeit goods on seven occasions in collusion with the above defendant B and C, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension
(2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statement at the prosecution of the defendant B, C, and the court below, and the statement between the defendant A and the defendant A and the defendant B or C, the fact that the defendant A received a bribe of 10 million won from the above defendants as stated in this part of the facts charged, or aided the defendant to commit a crime of smuggling of counterfeit goods and received a bribe of 18 million won in return, although the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the offering of a bribe to Defendant B and C, the prosecution of Defendant B and C, and each of the statements at the court below, the fact that Defendant B and C offered a bribe in relation to the duties of Defendant A, who are a customs official, on each date stated in this part of the facts charged.