All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. Defendant A of the facts charged in the instant case is a person in a substantial management of B in Gwangju-si, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing food waste treatment equipment.

Defendant

A from early May 2009 to June 201, 201, H inventions at the above company, and around March 25, 2010, the victim corporation, the Korean Intellectual Property Office, registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office under the Patent Code No. 10-0950792, “food waste treatment equipment, which is a method of melting food by inserting food on the inside crushing board of the apparatus with water and discharging food by melting food waste treatment equipment,” thereby infringing the victim’s patent right by generating approximately 300,000 food waste treatment equipment of an amount of KRW 90,000,000,000 in the market price, and by receiving the price, and infringing the victim’s patent right;

B. Defendant B, a representative at the above date, and at the same place, committed the above violation with respect to the business affairs of Defendant B.

2. Determination

A. Infringement of patent right under Article 225(1) of the Patent Act is an offense which can be discussed only upon a complaint filed by the injured party. If a trial decision invalidating a patent becomes final and conclusive, the patent right shall be deemed never to have existed unless it falls under Article 133(1)4 of the Patent Act (see Article 133(3) of the Patent Act). Thus, even if a complaint is filed prior to the final and conclusive trial decision on invalidation becomes final and conclusive, a complaint based on the patent right shall not be deemed to have been a legitimate complaint by the injured party. Public prosecution based on such a complaint constitutes a case where a public prosecution procedure under Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act is in violation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6325 Decided April 10, 2008). B.

The facts charged in this case are those falling under Article 225(1) of the Patent Act, which can be prosecuted only when a patentee files a complaint pursuant to Article 225(2) of the Patent Act.

However, this court's investigation.