A. Defendant A, the representative of Company B, and around February 13, 2015, at the point of Suwon-si, Inc., Ltd. located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, NTC. Investment Co., Ltd., Ltd., without obtaining the consent of use from the copyright holder, Defendant A had the employees of the said Company, including F, use two reproduction programs installed in two units of the above Company’s business-use computer. Parmec 2.0 reproduction programs installed in two units of the above Company’s business-use computer.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with the employees of the above company F, etc., and used the reproduction of the program created by infringing the copyright of the above copyright holder, knowing that the program was a reproduction of the program.

B. Defendant B, at the same time, and at the same place as that of paragraph (1), the Defendant committed the same offense as that of paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003; 2005Do2342, Jun. 24, 2005). (b) Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor in this case where the defendants denied the facts charged, in collusion with the employees of the defendant A, who is the representative director of the defendant corporation B (hereinafter "the defendant corporation"), the representative director of the defendant corporation (hereinafter "the defendant corporation"), by infringing copyright around February 13, 2015, it is reasonable to prove that two reproduced program copies were used in the course of business without reasonable doubt.

see.