The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the violation of the Design Protection Act due to the sale of “B” in the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 500,000,000 on the remaining facts charged.

Since only the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion of the lower judgment, the acquittal portion of the lower court was excluded from the Defendant’s appeal subject to separation and determination.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remaining convictions except the aforementioned separately and conclusively acquitted portion among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was manufactured and sold by the Defendant using another unique design that is different from the victim’s design.

On June 5, 2018, the Defendant registered the front flachi with the Defendant’s design to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant infringed the victim's design right is erroneous.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In determining the similarity of designs, the similarity of designs shall be determined not only by separately comparing each part with each other, but also by whether the sense and impression that can be drawn to the people who prepare, observe, and see the whole part. In such cases, the similarity of designs shall be determined from the perspective of whether the part that is the most easily leading person’s attention is identified as an essential part and that there is a difference between ordinary consumers’ aesthetic sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1263, Mar. 24, 201). In addition, the depth by appearance at the time of use as well as the transaction of goods in which the design is expressed should also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu3794, Apr. 11, 2013).