2. The fact that the Defendants were deemed to have engaged in pening technology in good faith in order not to infringe copyright, that there is no record of committing a crime exceeding the fine against Defendant E, and that the Defendants are both aware of and in depth against the Defendants, considering the favorable circumstances in favor of the Defendants, and that they sought profits by infringing copyright through new services using mobile devices is considered to be disadvantageous to the Defendants.

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is reasonable in light of the following: (a) there is no change in circumstances to determine a punishment differently from the lower court; and (b) in light of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as Defendant E’s age, method and consequence of the crime, etc.

3. If so, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.