The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant: (a) was an enterprise participating in the production and transportation of fish boxes for production and transportation administered by the Offshore Fisheries Association; and (b) agreed that five participating enterprises, including the KM, should not claim the right of design, etc.; and (c) the Defendant produced the fish boxes of the same design as the fish boxes registered by the complainant and supplied them free of charge to the members of the Offshore Fisheries Association; (b) although the Defendant did not have produced and sold the above fish boxes, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant infringed the right of design by producing and selling approximately 137,00 of the fish boxes of the same design as the those registered by the complainant.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged in this case’s ex officio determination is an offense falling under Article 82(1) of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013) and subject to prosecution only when a victim’s complaint is filed pursuant to Article 82(2) of the same Act. The main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “No complaint shall be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which the victim becomes aware of the offense subject to prosecution.”

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do12751, Nov. 24, 2011). Meanwhile, “the date on which a person becomes aware of a criminal” under Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the date on which a person becomes aware of a criminal after the criminal act has been completed, and the person having the right to file a complaint has committed a criminal act.