Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Written training (prosecutions) and Kim Jong-American (Trial)

Law Firm Chungcheong Law, Attorney Lee Jong-soo

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Gohap1939 Decided February 5, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Defendant 1 does not have any false indication prohibited under the Patent Act as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no intention to commit a false indication.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) and Defendant 2 is the corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing charnel houses, charnel houses, and equipment business.

1) Defendant 1

In order to produce, use, transfer, or rent an article produced by a non-patentable method, no one shall indicate it as a product produced by a patented method or place an indication that may be confused with it on such product.

Around December 16, 2003, the Defendant filed a patent application with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (patent registration number 1 omitted) on February 6, 2004, for the invention of the method of manufacturing each body by inserting or integrating each body in a string, which is a manufacturing method of “the string string string string string string string string string strings” and simultaneously inserting gas into each body, and obtained a patent with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (patent registration number 1 omitted) (hereinafter “instant patent”).

However, on January 1, 2006, the Defendant produced and sold goods from around January 1, 2006 to January 15, 2012, the method of manufacturing goods, which was designed by Nonindicted Party 1 and registered as a utility model (patent registration number 2 omitted), in a framework of the steel-frame structure, which is a general well-known and widely known technology (patent registration number 2 omitted), and was produced by using a method of general commercialization, such as inserting gas into the mouth of each of the above (individual). However, the Defendant’s invention of the pelbox production method was made on the website (location omitted) of Defendant 2’s company’s website by completely completing “after the process of manufacturing the pelbris filling system,” and then, it was recognized as having the patent registration number omitted (patent registration number 1 omitted.) the patent registration number omitted.

In order to transfer goods produced by a non-patentable method, the Defendant indicated them as if they were produced by a patented method.

2) Defendant 2

The defendant 1, who is the representative director of the defendant, indicated that the articles produced by a method that is not patented with respect to the defendant's business as stated in the above paragraph (1) were produced by the patented process in order to transfer them.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case on the basis of the evidence presented in its judgment.

C. Judgment of the court below

According to the Patent Gazette, if the court below legitimately adopted and examined the following circumstances, it is difficult for the defendants to easily inject the gas into the inner storage space of the 2nd invention. The "technical task to form an invention" in relation to the patent of this case means that "the other purpose of the invention is to facilitate the supply of gas to the inner storage space of the mound", and the "the composition and operation of the invention" means that the patent firm can easily inject the gas into the inner storage space as well as the subsequent storage space." Even if the patent firm's 6 and 7 use the outer storage space for the purpose of the patent of this case, it is difficult for the prosecutors to readily inject the gas into the inner storage space of the mound and to find it difficult for the aforementioned patent firm to jointly and severally inject the above mozzle with the inner storage space of the mound, and there is no difference between the two patent firm's mound and the patent firm's mozzle's mozzle and the remaining storage space."

Therefore, even though the facts charged in this case against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the court below found them guilty, and the Defendants’ assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below shall be rendered again after oral proceedings as follows.

The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants is the same as that of the 2.A., which constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime for the same reason as that of the 2.C., under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendants are acquitted, and the summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)