The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who is the representative director of C.

In around 2011, the Defendant entered into an agency contract with the victim D who sells the damp removal agents in China within the Republic of Korea.

On April 2012, the defendant obtained the consent from the above victims of the above damage that it would be possible for them to sell the damp removal system by registering trademark rights and patent rights in Korea. Through patent attorneys, the defendant received a request to request the registration of trademark rights and patent rights of "E" for the relevant products in the victim's future, and accepted such request, so the defendant's duty to vicariously perform trademark rights and patent registration duties at the victim's expense and to register trademark rights and patent rights to the victim.

The Defendant had the victim pay KRW 1,652,00,00 for the registration of patent rights and trademark rights to G Patent Attorney at F Office, but in violation of the above duties, registered the “E” trademark with respect to the removal of moistures in the name of the Defendant on the H date, and registered the patent as to the “ditable seizure” on the I date, thereby obtaining economic benefits equivalent to the above trademark rights and the market price of patent rights and causing damages to the victim equivalent to the same amount.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim or J on the same business with respect to the import and sale of the damp-water in this case, and there was no fact that the Defendant entered into a contract for vicarious sale with the victim who imported the damp-water in this case as stated in the facts charged

In addition, the defendant is entitled to apply the trademark right and patent right in the name of the defendant as the name of "E" was written by himself and the product design, planning, etc. was in charge.

As stated in the facts charged in this case, the victim only referred to the victim and registered the trademark right and the patent right in his own name.