A. Error 1) The Defendant is O (patent number, hereinafter “patent 1”) from July 2009 to August 201, 201.

() The fact that the complainant’s patent right was infringed on the product is recognized. However, in light of the fact that the heating method of the heat temperature pipe was widely known technology, the Defendant does not intentionally infringe on the Defendant. 2) Moreover, the Defendant did not infringe on the complainant’s patent right by manufacturing the second-patent product from August 26, 2011 after obtaining a patent for S (patent number V; hereinafter “Second-patent”).

Also, the goods sent by the defendant to AB are the second patent products.

B. In light of the legal principles, the complainant sent a written warning to the suspension of patent infringement to D on June 28, 2011, and was aware of the fact of patent infringement D or the Defendant’s patent infringement around that time, the complainant’s complaint against D on June 3, 2013 or the Defendant’s complaint against the Defendant on February 28, 2014 exceeded six months.

C. The facts charged in the instant case, which indicated the patent infringement period from July 2009, to August 13, 2013, the date of the trial decision revoking the trial decision to confirm the scope of patent rights, and cannot be deemed as specifying the time of criminal act or patent infringement committed.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts admitted by the lower court as to the mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant’s establishment and construction of the first patent products, thereby infringing the complainant’s patent right (patent number: I: hereinafter “Appellant’s patent right”) with high temperature temperature heating pipes as indicated in the facts charged.

In addition, as seen below, the defendant was working as an employee of the complainant, and in light of the fact that the complainant expressed the patent right of the complainant, the defendant seems to have been well aware of the complainant's patent.