All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal principles 1) Prior to the registration of the design of the victim company's design, the victim company had already registered prior designs in the Japanese official gazette, and the above products of the victim company can be easily created from the previous design, and the registration of the design for the above products of the victim company is invalid. Thus, the defendants infringed the victim company's design right.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The time when Defendant A visited the victim company without intention in violation of the Design Protection Act was transferred to manufacture and sell the floor board products for the building by the victim. Since there was no fact that the victim’s sampling of the floor board products for the building was made in the corporation B at the time of execution of the provisional disposition against Defendant B, the statement by the victim F of the victim company employees against this cannot be trusted.

As such, on March 11, 2015, Defendant A did not know that the floor board for the building manufactured and sold by the Defendants had infringed the right to design of the victim company before receiving a request from the victim company to suspend the infringement of the right to design. Defendant A suspended the sale of the product immediately upon receiving the said request. There was no intention of violation of the Design Protection Act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (a fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the validity of the registration of the victim company’s design, i.e., the registered design of the injured party not only is similar to the Japanese prior design claimed by the Defendant, but also cannot be easily created the victim’s registered design even if one or more elements of the prior design are selectively combined.