However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

No person, other than a patent attorney, shall act as an agent in matters pertaining to a patent, utility model, design or trademark, appraise such matters or perform other duties.

Nevertheless, from January 201 to December 31, 2014, the Defendant and C concurrently operated the F-Patent Law Office established under the name of E in the same place as the D Building 319, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, while accepting the application for a patent from the Korean Intellectual Property Office on January 1, 2010, and acting as an agent in the name of E.

The Defendant and C, as well as the foregoing, represented by the aforementioned method 530 times in total from the above date to December 29, 2014, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, performed duties on behalf of the patent, utility model, design and trademark matters.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant and C;

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects by the prosecution concerning E;

1. Details of the patent application and the current status of application;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning specification of transactions;

1. Article 24 (1) and Article 21 of the Patent Attorney Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act include: (a) the circumstances leading up to the instant crime for sentencing; (b) the profits acquired by the Defendant itself in the instant case are not much significant; (c) the possibility of recidivism in the future seems to exist; and (d) the level of punishment C, an accomplice (=one year of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution).