저작권법위반
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the operator of E Co., Ltd. located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, and from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2013, the education and the management of teachers in the 1-2-year education program “G(s)” related to the 1-2-year education program copyright with the victim F for three years from January 1, 2010, and the victim, while entering into a contract for business delegation with the Defendant to take charge of the sale and business, while the contract was being terminated on March 2, 2012, the Defendant could not use the said publication without the consent of the copyright holder, notwithstanding the fact that the said contract was terminated, from January 1, 2013, “I” without permission.
4. Around 29. Around the same day, K Child Care Center located in Ansan-si, Seosan-si, the victim's author's property right was infringed upon by distributing 15 copies to K Child Care Center located in Ansan-si, the 26 parts to K Child Care Center located in Ansan-si, the 7 parts to K Child Care Center located in Ansan-si, the 25 parts to Qu located in P in Seocheon-si, the 25 parts to each other.
2. As to the facts charged in this part of the judgment, the Defendant only disposed of the inventory possessed by the investigative agency to this court, but denied that the said North Korea was not reproduced and distributed without permission.
Around April 29, 2013, the victim confirmed that the Defendant had no inventory of the workshop that he had held. Around that time, the victim confirmed that the workshop was released from the Defendant Company as stated in the facts charged. Around that time, the victim’s statement was a reproduction of the workshop released from Defendant Company. It is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s statement alone was a reproduction of the Defendant’s unauthorized reproduction.
T, which was the team leader of S, also stated to the effect that the victim's product was a reproduction in this court, and that the reproduction was only supplied by the defendant, so it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.