A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

ARTICLE 1.

A. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Design Protection Act, which found Defendant 1 guilty of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant only made a statement to acknowledge this part of the facts charged by mistake at an investigative agency, and the actual production of the Defendant is different from the design on the design right owned by the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts and the scope of validity of design right.

2) The sentence sentenced by each court below to the defendant [4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution (the court below's judgment No. 1), 8 months of imprisonment (the court below's judgment No. 2)] is too unreasonable.

B. As to the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below of first instance (the violation of the Patent Act and the Design Protection Act due to E 1 produced and sold to D, and each violation of the Patent Act due to O and E 2 sold to P), the court below found the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the entries in the trial decision No. 2012 delivered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2808, the victim's legal statement, the defendant's statement in the investigative agency, etc., and the evidence submitted by

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal.

The judgment of the court below in the first and second instances filed an appeal against the defendant and the prosecutor respectively (Provided, That the prosecutor appealed only to the part not guilty of the decision of the court below in the first and second instances). The court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. The crimes of the first and second judgments against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence is to be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the first and second judgments of the court below in the first and the second judgment in the second judgment cannot be maintained any more.

However, as above.