The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (the first instance court’s acquittal part) rejected the defense counsel’s claim that R (portun infection treatment equipment) sold by Defendant A is not a medical device, and the above product was recognized as a medical device; however, in light of all the circumstances (as a premise that R and similar products are not a medical device, three times or three times or more are issued and a summary order is confirmed on the ground that such products are likely to be mistaken as a medical device, on the premise that R and similar products are not a medical device), Defendant A appears to have recognized the above products as a medical device without recognizing it as a medical device, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ intention to commit the facts charged in the portion of innocence. On February 28, 2011, after the above summary order was issued, Defendant A applied for a patent on R (the first instance court’s acquittal part) with the name of “Carrying-free treatment equipment,” and the lower court appears to have known that the above products were an intentional medical device under the premise that the above products were “medical device” (the above part of this case’s 14).

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below (1) Defendant A (A)