If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

The defendant is a person who manufactures and sells drilling equipment for construction with the trade name of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

The defendant, as of October 24, 2009, for the same year as that of the defendant

3.6. In the above D, the patent application is filed on January 29, 2002 by the victim E on the invention as of January 29, 2002, and on January 12, 2004 as of January 12, 2004, the "debris-type hedget" and the external appearance and function similar to those of the victim's transaction partner shall be manufactured at will and the amount equivalent to US$ 67,020 on February 24, 2009 to Hong Kong G, which is the transaction partner of the victim.

3.6. Sales (export) equivalent to US$ 92,070.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the patent right of the above victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. H’s testimony;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. One copy of the Hong Kong Council Examination, and one copy of the Korean translation;

1. Status of individual entry and departure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of notification of complaint, patent register, and order review;

1. Relevant Article 225 (1) of the Patent Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 225 (1) of the Patent Act selection of punishment,

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The crime of this case constitutes a crime subject to victim's complaint under Article 225 (2) of the Patent Act and must file a complaint within six months from the date on which the complainant became aware of the offender. Since the complainant filed a complaint only after the lapse of six months from March 26, 2009 and April 8, 2010, which became aware of the infringement of patent right, the complaint of this case was filed after the expiration of the period for filing the complaint of this case, and the indictment of this case based on the complaint of this case is illegal and invalid since the procedure for filing the complaint of this case is invalid in violation of the provisions of the law, and thus, the indictment of this case should be pronounced as a judgment dismissing

According to the records, I, the wife of the defendant, who is the representative of D on April 3, 2009, is the facts charged in this case.