Defendant

A is a corporation that is the representative director of B, and Defendant B is a corporation that is established for the purpose of publishing and selling the study books in the 9th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.

1. On May 2010, Defendant A habitually published and distributed “E” in the 9th floor office of the said C building on a commercial basis, which was published and distributed “E” published by the said company without the victim’s consent, on May 4, 2010, in the 19th floor office of the said C building, where the victim D created and owned the said copyright.

2. A, the representative of Defendant B’s Defendant, was habitually infringed on the author’s property right of copyright holder for profit in relation to the Defendant’s business at the date and place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements (the third court date);

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning G and D;

1. The chief commissioner of a complaint and the chief commissioner of a complaint;

1. Appellant’s work or infringed work;

1. Investigation report (H of the Copyright Association);

1. Investigation reports (Attachment to judgments, etc. on the appellees), and application of respective statutes of the judgment; and

1. Article 136(1) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 11110, Dec. 2, 201) that applicable to criminal facts and Article 136(1) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 11110, Dec.

1. Defendants to be suspended from sentence: Fines of 500,000 won; and

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendants of suspended sentence: The defendants of the reasons for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act are subject to criminal punishment or criminal punishment for liability for damages through a civil or criminal dispute between the complainant's agent and using the inserted "E" as various teaching materials.

The "Evaluation of the Reference Note and the Mesical Content" in the F4th of May, 2010, which the defendants used the above insertingization, is a public or criminal case.