After the decision on provisional disposition prohibiting the infringement of the utility model right of this case (hereinafter "provisional disposition of this case"), the defendant discontinued the production of the banner installation stand which was manufactured and sold in the past, and has manufactured new products which were remodeled and passed the utility model registration and technology evaluation two times separately. The design for the registration of utility model rights acquired by the defendant is a device different from the design for the registration of the non-indicted who is the applicant of the provisional disposition of this case, and thus does not fall within the scope of the right. As long as the registration of the utility model right of this case does not become null and void through the invalidation trial, the defendant's act of manufacturing and selling the banner installation stand on the basis of his utility model right cannot be deemed to have infringed the non-indicted's utility model right. Accordingly, since the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant's registered petition is merely a simple design change on the registered petition of the non-indicted, or is in an equal relationship or use relationship. Thus, according to the above facts acknowledged, the defendant's act of manufacturing and selling the above products infringed on the non-indicted's utility right, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the provisional disposition in this case. Thus, the facts charged in this case is found guilty, and the Supreme Court's decision pointing out by the defendant does not constitute a proper precedent in this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Young-chul (Presiding Judge)