Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) The perception and solution method of the problems revealed by the lower court in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that: (a) the technologies contained in the patent as indicated in the holding of the lower court (hereinafter “in the instant technology”) filed by E (hereinafter “Appellant”) or any pening technology contained in the patent filed by the Defendant under the Defendant’s denial name can be easily derived through the previous technologies.

The Defendant had never seen the instant technology before filing an application for patent under the name of the Defendant, and had consistently studied the previous technology, and filed an application for patent by independently citing the technology.

In addition, the defendant has stolen

The instant technology is not included in the scope of the claim of the complainant, and its use does not constitute an illegal use. Moreover, even based on the judgment of the court below, the Defendant improved and expanded the technologies of the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as “domination.”

2) Since a fine of KRW 15 million imposed by the lower court in violation of law has been set aside from the upper limit of a fine prescribed by Article 23 of the former Formal Justice (amended by Act No. 11962, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same) and the lower court erred by violating the Act.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable for the criminal defendant to be sentenced to sentencing.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant’s violation of the law, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court alleged that the Defendant abused the confidential information of the instant technology, an invention of the complainant, on the grounds of various facts and circumstances described in detail in the column of “determination on issues”

The recognition was recognized.

This judgment of the court below is duly adopted and examined in comparison with the evidence which was examined.