The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Considering the summary of the grounds for appeal, given the following factors: (a) the principle of territorialism of intellectual property rights and the situation of the Republic of Korea’s Blus plant variety industry, the Defendant, in the interpretation of Article 64 of the Plant Variety Protection Act, can be deemed as “a person who is separately nurtured with reporters,” and thus, the Defendant had a trade license for each plant variety of Blus.

On January 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) disposed of the instant plant variety in level and Melela after the decision to dispose of the land price for the infringement of the temporary protection rights by Busan District Court; and (b) did not propagate and implement the plant variety any longer.

Since the Defendant, even after November 21, 2015, continued to engage in the conduct of implementation, such as propagation and sale of the species Melel, the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Act on the Protection of New Plant Varieties after November 21, 2015 is unreasonable.

In this part of the facts charged regarding the assertion of mistake of each of the unfair facts in sentencing, the Victim Research Foundation of the University (Univian Research Foundation), Inc. (Suzibl), Ruzibl, Carbl, and Melela (Camla), filed an application for plant variety protection on January 10, 2012 with the victim on January 15, 2012 for plant variety protection, the application for plant variety protection on March 15, 2012, the plant variety protection application was published on April 5, 2015; No. 5421; No. 5424; No. 5424; and No. 5424; the victim’s exclusive right to plant variety protection was registered on April 22, 2015; the victim’s exclusive right to plant variety protection was established on May 24, 2015; the victim’s exclusive right to plant variety protection was established on the victim’s 14,55, 15, and 15,2, 4.5.

No one shall commercially produce and sell any third person's protected variety for business purposes without permission of a variety protection right or an exclusive licensee thereof.

Nevertheless, the defendant around March 201.