The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Defendant Co., Ltd.) of the facts charged in the instant case manufactures 10,654 de de de facto eurbane for the roadway that was registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on February 25, 2010 by the victim D from April 2010 to September 15, 2010, and sells it to Gwangju Metropolitan City and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, thereby infringing the victim’s design right.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Articles 87 and 82(1) of the Design Protection Act, which may be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint pursuant to Article 82(2). Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a complaint may not be filed after the lapse of six months from the date when the victim becomes aware of the offender in relation to an offense subject to victim's complaint.

However, according to the records, on June 29, 201, the injured party D applied for a provisional injunction against infringement on a design to the Seoul Central District Court for the same cause as the facts charged in the instant case, and the injured party requested the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal to confirm the scope of a patent right on July 12, 201, and on September 7, 2011, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision that “the de detone for the instant roadway manufactured and sold by the accused company falls under the scope of design E’s design right.”

If so, at least the victim was aware of the infringement of the right to design of the victim by the defendant company around June 29, 201, and the victim's complaint filed on September 5, 2012, which is obvious that six months have passed thereafter, is inappropriate to have been filed after the expiration of the period for filing a complaint. The public prosecution of this case, which is based on an unlawful complaint, is null and void in violation of the provisions of the law.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.