[특허법위반][공2016하,905]
The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the specified degree of the facts charged / The requirements to specify the facts charged in the case of a violation of the Patent Act, which is a matter of whether the goods produced by the defendant or the method of using the patented invention infringed
Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The description of facts constituting the crime must specify the facts by specifying the time, date, place, and method of the crime.” The purpose of the provision is to ensure the efficiency and speed of the trial by limiting the object of the trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor must comprehensively consider the three specific elements and describe specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime in order to distinguish the facts from other facts in the case where the patent right of the infringing product is infringed on. In addition, in order to make the defendant describe specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime to distinguish the patented invention from other facts in the case where the act of producing or using the infringing product (hereinafter “infringed product, etc.”) infringes on the patent right of the patented invention, the patented invention that constitutes the elements of the crime must be identified by the method on which the patent registration number is stated in relation to the subject of the infringement. In relation to the attitude of the infringement, the description of the infringing product, product number, etc.
Article 225(1) of the Patent Act, Article 254(4) and Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3082 Decided October 27, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2483) Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16361 Decided February 10, 2011
Defendant
Defendant
Incheon District Court Decision 2015No1853 Decided October 29, 2015
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.
The judgment on the grounds of appeal shall be made ex officio.
Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The facts constituting the crime must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) is to limit the object of a trial to seek the efficiency and speed of a trial by limiting the object of a trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As such, a prosecutor must consider the three specific elements and describe specific facts that constitute the elements of a crime in order to distinguish them from those of a patented invention in a case where the patent right of a patented invention was infringed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3082, Oct. 27, 200; 2010Do16361, Feb. 10, 201). Furthermore, in order for the defendant to have stated the specific facts that constitute the elements of a crime, such as the patented invention from those of a patented invention or the number of the patented invention.
However, as to the method of crime, the charged facts of this case state that "the defendant stated that " from ○ wood around January 2013, the victim non-indicted corporation is identical with the "prefabricated Packaging Packaging for the use of arms," registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (patent registration number omitted) and its components, and thereby infringing the patent right of the victim corporation by producing, producing, and selling packages belonging to the scope of the above patent right." Thus, it cannot be specified on the ground that the packaging box for the infringed product that the defendant produced, produced, and sold is not clearly indicated, and the same applies to the case where the other facts charged are considered. Thus, the charged facts of this case are not specified.
Therefore, even though the facts charged in this case are not specified and thus the procedure for institution of public prosecution is to be in violation of the law, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged in this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)