1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed;

2. Of the judgment of the court below, the phrase “the number” of No. 10 of the disposition No. 2 of the court below shall be read as “Confiscation.”

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the defendant's mistake and reflects his or her mistake, there are no criminal records exceeding the same kind and fine, and the defendant's health status is not good.

However, the crime of this case is also recognized, such as selling or possessing counterfeit goods, infringing the trademark rights of the registered owner of the trademark right, and disturbing the order in the market at the same time, and the crime is not good, and the amount of counterfeit goods sold or possessed by the defendant for sale is large.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment of the lower court, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That it is obvious that the “we can see” of Article 10 of the Disposition No. 2 of the court below is a clerical error in the “Confiscation”, and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.