The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of suspended execution in the month of imprisonment with prison labor, eight hours of social service and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime, the primary offender, and the fact that the Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime appears to be gross.

However, the Defendant sold the instant crime in the position of the business owner who has operated the main cell phone repair and parts of the mobile phone, and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relation, and family relation, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, which are the conditions for the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and the changed theories, are considered to be too unreasonable, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant violated the legitimate trademark right holder’s right; and (b) at the same time it disturbs the market economy and damages the consumer’s trust; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime in the position of the business owner who has operated the main cell phone repair and parts of the mobile phone; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime in the position of the business owner who has operated the main cell phone repair and parts of the mobile phone; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relation, and consequence after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.