Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant

If B does not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A Co., Ltd. is a company that manufactures cement secondary products in Kimcheon-si D, and Defendant B is the representative director of the above company.

1. From February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2014, the Defendant sold a design registration (registration number 30-041932) to the Korean Intellectual Property Office on July 3, 2006, the reinforced retaining wall block, approximately 2,496 square meters (around 120 million won) of a design similar to that of a relic retaining wall block, which was registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (registration number 30-041932), and infringed the victim’s design right.

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd. infringed the victim’s design right as the representative director B of Defendant Co., Ltd. violated the victim’s design right.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. The registered design bulletin, a patent exclusive license agreement, a new design bulletin for registration, a full certificate of registered matters (A), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the materials submitted by the complainant), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the materials submitted by the criminal suspect), and a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the materials submitted by the criminal suspect) [the defendants and the defense counsel did not have

The argument is asserted.

On October 208, the Defendants came to know of the fact that the products produced and sold by the Defendants were protected by the victim’s design right during the industrial property dispute mediation procedure between the victim and the victim at the latest. Even if the Defendants could have sold the said products by means of a patent exclusive license agreement between the victim and the victim.

I think that it was

Even if there was a well-known circumstance that the above contract was not allowed to sell the area of Gyeongcheon-si and old-gun, and thus, the above assertion that the Defendants did not have intention is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. The pertinent Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and the Defendant A Company: Article 87 Subparag. 1 of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 2013) and Article 82 Subparag. 1 of the former Design Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11848, May 28, 201) Defendant B: Article 82 of the same Act.