특허법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A, in six months of imprisonment, the defendant corporation B shall be punished by a fine of 50 million won.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) Concerning the act of misrepresentation of patent rights (the crime No. 1-A of the judgment of the court below)
Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of this Article are the number of employees, and there is no intention about false labelling to Defendant A. 2) In relation to the infringement of patent rights (Article 1-b and Paragraph 2 of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below), the "D" model developed and sold by Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "products of this case") shall be referred to as the "each patent of this case" as stated on the facts constituting an offense, and the "Patent 1" as well as the "Patent 2" as the "Patent 2" as stated on the claims of the "Patent 2", and the "Patent 2" as stated on the "Patent 1" as stated on the patent registration number K, and the "Patent 2" as stated on the "Patent 2" has no substantial difference in its structure and operation. Thus, there is no infringement of patent rights.
B. The prosecutor's each sentence of the court below (the defendant A: six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and fine of 50,000,000 won) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. 1-B of the facts charged by the prosecutor of Amendments to Bill of Indictment
The part concerning the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below (related to Paragraph 1-B, Paragraph 2, of the crime in the judgment of the court below) stated below "the part concerning the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below" was applied for changes in the contents of the judgment, and since this court permitted changes in the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot
B. Determination as to the act of false labelling of a patent (related to Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) of this Article ex officio as to whether the act described in this part of the facts charged constitutes a false labelling of a patent right, Article 228 and Item 3 and 1 of Article 224 of the Patent Act as to whether such act constitutes a false marking of a patent right, Article 228 and Item (3) of the Patent Act is not a patent, a non-patent-related article, a non-patent-related