The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is the owner of B cargo vehicle in the instant facts charged.

On July 23, 2004, the injured Party C registered the “feed Return Device for Feed Transport Vehicles” with its registration number D. The contents are the structure in which the feed stored in the feed tower is installed outside the feed tank and installed in the back part of the vertical transfer pipe and the horizontal transfer pipe and the feed tank installed inside the feed tank and connected with the vertical transfer axis are connected to the feed tower. The upper part is connected to the above medicine tower, and the upper part is connected to the other part of the feed return device for the feed transport vehicle, including the return pipe equipped with the return screen that is driven by the former means, and the inside part is connected with the other part of the feed return system for the feed transport vehicle, including the return pipe equipped with one or more closing doors that are driven by the former means. In the prescribed location of the horizontal transfer pipe, it is the structure in which the feed stored in the feed tower automatically return the feed to the automatic tank through the opening and closing box installed in the horizontal transfer pipe in order through the regular transfer pipe, the vertical transfer pipe, and the horizontal transfer pipe.

Around April 2009, the Defendant: (a) entrusted F Co., Ltd. in Cheongyang-gun E to install a vertical horizontal transfer pipe (in a position corresponding to the entrance of the feed tank) installed in the feed tank and the feed tank upper part of the said cargo vehicle; (b) entrusted the G Co., Ltd. in Y in Yan-si to manufacture the return pipe and the oil pressure tank by entrusting it to the H Co., Ltd. in Y in Yan-si; and (c) performed the work of transporting feed by means of returning feed of the same structure as the feed return device that the victim registered as a utility model.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed on the victim's utility model right.

2. We examine the judgment. This is a crime falling under Article 45(1) of the Utility Model Act and can be prosecuted only upon a victim’s complaint pursuant to Article 45(2) of the same Act. According to the records, the Defendant on November 8, 201, the victim, after the instant indictment, is the Defendant.