The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant: (a) as a de facto operator of cosmetic, “B” as a cosmetic wholesaler, the Defendant: (b) entrusted the production of the inside metal frame of “F” registered with “B” as the date D; (c) entrusted the assembly to “H” located in the Bupyeong-si, Incheon; (d) produced the f3 parts of the Defendant’s patent registration; and (e) sold 80,000 won per unit to K operating the cosmetic in the name of “J” at the “B” factory located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul; and (e) sold three copies of the patent right of the victim to K operating the cosmetic in the trade name of “J” on September 30, 2015.

2. According to the records of this case, the defendant filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial seeking invalidation of the patented invention of this case against C, the patentee of the patented invention of this case (2017Da2670), and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision that all of the patented inventions of this case should invalidate the patented invention of this case on June 27, 2019 on the ground that the patented invention of this case has no non-obviousness, and it can be recognized that the above trial decision became final and conclusive on August 13, 2019 (the patent right shall be retroactively extinguished (Article 133 of the Patent Act), and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the defendant infringed the patent of this case.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, a not-guilty verdict under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be pronounced, but since the defendant is unable to obtain consent due to his/her failure to appear on the sentencing date, a public announcement of acquittal judgment under the proviso of