1. From March 5, 2013 to December 24, 2013, Defendant A installed 21 programs in total as shown in the attached list of crimes, such as installing “Ansys Muitphysis 13” on a computer installed in the B office operated by the Defendant, which was located in the City Center B B 101, located in the B office operated by the Defendant, without the consent of the copyright holder, who is the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the author's property right by reproducing the victim's work.

2. As set forth in paragraph (1), Defendant B, a representative of the Defendant, was negligent in exercising due care and supervision to prevent such violation, even though he reproduced the victims’ copyrighted works without the consent of the victims to use them for the Defendant’s mechanical design services, etc.

2. We examine the judgment. It is a crime falling under Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act, which can be prosecuted only upon a victim's complaint under Article 140 of the same Act. According to the records, it is clear that the complainant revoked the complaint against the Defendants on October 16, 2014, after the public prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.