1. For the establishment of an offense of infringement of a utility model right, a device that contains an organic combination relationship between each element listed in the claim(s) of a registered utility model and the elements thereof, or that contains an identical device, even if the elements are changed in the device that the defendant's implementation, has the same effect as the registered utility model, even if the solution principle of the registered utility model and the task are changed, and such change has the same effect as that of the registered utility model, and a device with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device pertains, should be implemented to the extent that anyone

(2) On January 15, 2009, the court below convicted Defendant A, a representative director, of the part of the facts charged in this case, of violating the utility model right of this case (registration number H) under the registered utility model of this case (registration number), where the name of Defendant A is " Chhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhp" (hereinafter "the goods of this case") and the name of Defendant A was "Chhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh". The court below found Defendant B, as above, guilty of the part of the facts charged that the utility model of this case was infringed on the utility model of this case.

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in order for the Defendants to have infringed on the utility model right of the instant registered utility model as seen above, the technical composition of the instant product must be identical or equal to any of the claims 1 through 6 of the instant registered utility model. However, even based on all evidence duly admitted by the court below, insofar as the technical composition of the instant product is not known, it is among the claims for utility model registration of the instant case.