The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. Type 1 companies are Type 1 companies that asserted that the Defendant was a “distribution agency” other than Sub-Le and that the Defendant did not report the royalties to the Defendant. The attached Form is that the Defendant did not report the royalties to the Defendant.

3. The type 1 or 8 companies and the type 2 companies are the companies that the Defendant entered into a Sub-Licse contract and reported the reduction of royalties (the companies listed in the table 9 or 48). As regards E, the type 1 companies are the companies F (hereinafter referred to as “F”).

Since a license contract has been entered into with the West, royalties received from the type 1 companies should be considered to be subject to settlement.

On the other hand, since the victim did not allow the "distribution agency business" as claimed by the defendant, the defendant's failure to report the royalty income generated in the transaction with the first type company to the victim shall be deemed as a deception.

Furthermore, due to the above deception, the victim could not exercise the right on the wind that did not know the occurrence of the royalties claim, so the disposal act by omission in relation to the type 1 company shall be deemed to have been established.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the act of disposal in fraud or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the act of disposal in fraud.

B. As to the type 2 companies, reporting the royalties generated in the transaction with the type 2 companies by reducing them to the victim constitutes deception, and it should be deemed that the Defendant has the intent to acquire the royalties.

Furthermore, due to the above deception, the victim could not exercise the right on the wind that did not know the occurrence of the royalty claim, so it is also related to the type 2 companies.