The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

. The applicant.

1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) around March 2014, at the victim’s F Office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the Defendants agreed to grant the victim company the exclusive license with respect to the “G” patent (patent number H; hereinafter “instant patent”) owned by Defendant A, the representative of the victim company D, up to the expiration date ( July 16, 2029) of the pertinent patent term; and (b) the Defendants agreed to receive 4000 shares of each victim company (in face value 5,00 won) and 4 million won per month from each victim company under the pretext of patent fees, royalties, etc.

However, even though Defendant A and I were jointly patent holders, there was no consent from I, and the Defendants agreed to grant the exclusive license to the above patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent-related patent

Nevertheless, the Defendants: (a) by deceiving the representative D of the victim company; (b) concluded an exclusive license agreement with the victim company; (c) concluded an exclusive license agreement with the victim company; and (d) obtained a sum of KRW 48 million from March 2014 to August 2014 and KRW 48 million (each 24 million) from the victim company as patent royalties, etc. from the victim company, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 88 million from the victim company.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendants agreed to grant the exclusive license of the instant patent to the victim company, and whether the Defendants received 4,000 shares of each victim company (in par value 5,000) and 4 million won per month from each victim company under the pretext of patent fees.

B. The statements and L in D and K investigative agencies and this court are the major evidences that seem to correspond to the above facts charged.