The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of purchasing each of the instant Blue varieties from R, was unaware of the fact that there was a patent right issue with respect to each of the instant Blue varieties, and subsequently, the Defendant believed that R was not a separate issue even after obtaining the victim’s certification of its content, and subsequently there was no intention to infringe on the rights of the provisional protection right holder, the variety protection right holder, and the exclusive licensee.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake, the court below examined the evidence in comparison with the reasons stated in the item of "the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion", and we affirm the judgment of the court below that the defendant had the intent to infringe on the rights of the provisional protection right holder, the variety protection right holder and the exclusive licensee of each Blue plant variety of this case, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant.

1) From around August 2012, there was a legal dispute between R and the injured party regarding whether each of the instant Blue varieties infringed the provisional protection rights. (2) At the time, M Co., Ltd., a domestic exclusive license for each of the instant Blue varieties, transferred the exclusive license for each of the instant Blue varieties to N Co., Ltd. around August 2015.

(hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) outside directors have visited the farm operated by the Defendant at the request of the Defendant around spring in 2012, and there is a plant variety right for the instant Blube seedlings at that time.