The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing) was unlawful or unreasonable to calculate the amount of collection on the basis of the sales proceeds of the counterfeit product of this case, even though the court below sustained damages in cases where the defendant deducteds the expenses incurred from the transaction from the profits derived from selling the forged hedge or earphones of this case (hereinafter “the counterfeit product of this case”).

The sentence of the lower court (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of probation, one hundred and twenty hours of community service order, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Property generated by infringement of trademark rights under Article 93 of the Trademark Act, which is subject to confiscation or collection under Articles 8 through 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, as criminal proceeds under Article 2 of the same Act. The sales proceeds received by the defendant in return for the sale of the goods bearing a forged trademark are subject to confiscation of property obtained by infringement of trademark rights.

In addition, in collecting criminal proceeds, even if the expenses paid by an offender in order to obtain criminal proceeds have been disbursed from criminal proceeds, they are not merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006). Considering that Article 97-2 of the Trademark Act provides the goods itself caused by the infringement of trademark rights as the subject of necessary confiscation, and it cannot be compensated for the expenses paid in the course of sale for the goods confiscated without going through the act of sale, it is difficult to view that the property generated by the act of selling the goods infringing trademark rights is limited to the portion of net profit gained by the sale, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the sales proceeds itself can be collected in full if it is impossible to confiscate the sales proceeds itself, the value equivalent to the total

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles.