The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the Defendants not guilty of the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s astronomical lighting that was manufactured and sold by Defendant A infringed the design right of D because it is similar to the ceiling registered by D; and (b) the court below found the Defendants not guilty.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. Defendant A, under the trade name of “Co., Ltd. B, was a representative operating a astronomical lighting company. From November 2016 to May 2017, 201, Defendant A manufactured and sold approximately 3,90 of a astronomical lighting similar to that of a tent design registered by D with registration number E (F) to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and infringed the design right of D.

B. Defendant B, at the time and place stated in the above paragraph (a) above, the Defendant, a representative of the Defendant, committed an act of violation as described in the above paragraph (a).

3. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the following grounds.

- A astronomical lighting made and sold by Defendant A (hereinafter “the instant ceiling, etc.”) is similar to the appearance of the ceiling, etc. registered by D (hereinafter “the registered design of this case”). However, the design applied to the ceiling, etc. of this case falls under the scope of the registered design of this case, since the design applied to the ceiling, etc. of this case falls under the scope of the registered design of this case where a person with ordinary knowledge in the field to which the design of this case pertains can easily work through an open design or combination thereof. Thus, the design applied to the ceiling, etc

Even if the scope of right falls within the scope of right, it does not seem that the core sense of the instant tent, etc. and the instant registered design is similar.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. According to the circumstances indicated by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the instant tent, etc. produced and sold by Defendant A infringed the design right of the registered design of this case.

(1) D is against the Defendant Company B.