Defendants shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, they are respectively prohibited.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who is engaged in oral manufacturing business in the name of Pyeongtaek-si F, and Defendant B is a person who is engaged in militaryization sales business in the name of G in the military unit located in the U.S. military unit located in the U.S.

1. Defendant A entered into a subcontract for a fighting product foundation with another person who is the representative director of Pyeongtaek-si H Co., Ltd. in around 2001 and supplied the fighting from the above F to the said H Co., Ltd. on December 31, 2006, but the subcontract was terminated due to the expiration of the contract. However, in manufacturing the fighting from the early police officer of February 2008 to the above F Co., Ltd., Defendant A infringed the design right of H by supplying the fighting of the design identical to the fighting (Design Registration No. J) registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office from February 31, 2009 to February 2009.

2. From the beginning of February 2008 to February 2, 2009, Defendant B supplied the same fighting as that of the design registered with the Korean Intellectual Property Office at H by Defendant A and sold it to the United States Armed Forces, thereby infringing the H’s design right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Testimony of K witness;

1. Protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of each of the Defendants

1. Statement of the police statement to K;

1. A design registration certificate;

1. Application of each statute of the judgment;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 82(1) of the Design Protection Act; and selection of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the assertion by Defendant A and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant does not have a newness in the injured party's design.

The design of the victim was different from the design of the defendant, and the design of the victim did not infringe on the design of the design.

Since May 26, 2008, the design right holder did not manufacture monitizing a design that infringes on the design.

2. Determination

(a) Domins, Domins, as seen earlier.