The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) in a case where an expert’s opinion is sought and acted in accordance with his/her opinion, and only the material favorable to him/her is concealed; (b) in a case where the expert’s opinion is either arbitrary interpretation without confirmation or unclear, etc., the intent of patent infringement may be recognized if circumstances exist to support such intentional intent; (c) Defendant’s side may avoid the possibility of not intentionally sending “J” to the patent attorneyO; and (d) in a written response prepared by the patent attorneyO, it is difficult for Defendant’s side to see that such opinion is uncertain; (b) in light of the first representative of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and his/her spouse’s statement, it is difficult for Defendant’s side to see that the patent right infringement was sufficiently infringed on the Defendant’s patent right at the time of the occurrence of an intentional infringement on the Defendant’s patent right, and that it is difficult for Defendant J to see that Defendant J’s additional request was made on or after June 14, 2012.

In addition, in examining the photograph and method of use of the “J” product, the fact that the “J” was confirmed to have infringed on the K’s patent right and that the product was a product infringing on the K’s patent right can also be recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Patent Act shall affect the judgment.