(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.06.01 2017노1590



All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and narl, a traditional craft, have been succeeded to, developed, and developed on the premise of collaboration, and bracker, which is merely an alternative to a stolen way, the lower court erred by misapprehending the meaning of “direct production” required by G 45 times and 38 times K, a regional tugboat (hereinafter referred to as “instant Daejeon”) (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant Daejeon”), and by erroneous interpretation of the meaning of “direct production” required by G and 38 times, a regional tugboat.

(B) The commission of blishing work to external workers was made by lner lurgic crafts, and thus, Defendant A was aware of the intention or illegality of each of the instant crimes.

Now, Defendant A’s display of theO to each of the instant Daejeon did not enter M as a partner, nor did it be viewed as a deceptive act or a deceptive scheme to renew the transfer work in the course of the on-site inspection.

B. There is no relation between Defendant A’s act of disclosing M as a cooperator or a co-manufacturer as above and the result of the award in the Daejeon of this case.

(C) Defendant B had a joint processing doctor or joint processing as a principal offender.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. In determining whether a prosecutor (1) mistakes the facts and imitates the legal principles, the criteria for determining whether a person is within the scope of protection of a design right among the requirements for infringement of a design right under Article 220 of the Design Protection Act shall be applied. According to the standards, theO produced by a defendant A shall be the same as S’s Nabagyang at the time of the Nagyang.

Even if it is judged on the basis of actual similarity of copyright according to the judgment of the court below, theO has already been created in time of display and the Nabang Nabang Na, which is commercialized.