Whether the withdrawal of a complaint against one of the accomplicess who have infringed on a utility model right may also be effective against the other accomplices.

The withdrawal of a complaint against one of the accomplices who have infringed on a utility model right under Article 30 (1) 1 of the Utility Model Act shall also have effect on other accomplices under Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 74No5032 delivered on November 11, 1975

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Judgment on the Prosecutor's Grounds of Appeal

In light of the records, the facts charged against the defendant, in collusion with the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the court below's upper judgment, infringed on the right to utility model, which is a complaint, Kim Wil, which is an accomplice, from November 1, 1973 to January 28, 1974. The applicable provisions of this Act can be known to be Article 30 (1) 1 of the Utility Model Act. The defendant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint with the above defendants as co-offender of violating the Utility Model Act of the same contents as to the non-indicted 26 February 26, 1974 (in Chapter 10 of the Investigation Record), and then revoked the complaint against the non-indicted 1 (in Chapter 542 of the Utility Model Act), and the above violation of the utility model right should be discussed, and thus, it is effective that the defendant's withdrawal of the complaint should not have any effect on the withdrawal of the complaint by the court below after the above decision of the court below.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)