Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine; 50.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant: (a) requested the 2,850,000 won total market value of the same design design as the design design that the victim D completed the design registration to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”); and (b) from the middle of February 2013 to the end of May 2013, at the place of business 114, C, C, located in 476, C, and C, located in China, to manufacture the same design as the design design that the victim D completed the design registration to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”); and (c) from the middle of February 2013 to the end of May 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the victim's design right.

2. Defendant C 114, who was an employee, committed an act of infringing the design right described in paragraph (1) in relation to his/her business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect against the defendant A;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A complaint and attached documents and photographs (Evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the evidence list);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation and documents attached thereto (Evidence Nos. 20 through 23);

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 87 subparagraph 1 of the Design Protection Act and Article 82 (1) of the said Act;

1. Defendant A who is selected to impose a fine;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument D is that the establishment of a non-exclusive license on each of the above design rights has been terminated by the warning note around February 18, 2013, when trading with the Defendants from the beginning of early 2008. In such cases, since the Defendants, who requested and supplied the manufacturing of the existing design, re-produced the modified design that does not infringe D’s registered design right and received the delivery thereof, the Defendants continued to have registered D for about three months from February 2013 to May 20 of the same year.