컴퓨터프로그램보호법위반
The Defendants publish the summary of the judgment on each of the Defendants not guilty.
1. Summary of the facts charged in this case
A. Defendant A’s above Defendant A’s vice head of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was in charge of the second project team of GOC advanced, and the above Defendant was in charge of the second project team from the end of April 2009.
5. From October to June 30, 2009, at the H Research Institute located in Daejeon, a corporation I (hereinafter referred to as “responsor company”) drafted a program programming (program ID: J and file names: K) program (hereinafter referred to as “instant program”) in which the program copyright is held by the Company I (hereinafter referred to as “responsor Company”) without permission. From that time to that time, the program’s program copyright infringement is done by the employees of the said G Pridong-dong and Frido branch from that time to that time to June 30, 2009.
B. Defendant B, a corporation established for the purpose of consulting information system, etc., and the above Defendant, at the time and place under the preceding paragraph, infringed upon the program copyright as above by A, who is its employee.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A, as indicated in the facts charged, acknowledged the fact that the instant program was opened as described in the facts charged, but argued to the effect that the program was not subject to copyright infringement or that there was no awareness of copyright infringement. ① The instant program was opened several times by the complainant company in the above H Research Institute server, etc. even before the opening of the instant program, according to the evidence records 466 to 468, Defendant A was recognized that the files of “L”, the form in which the instant program was combined, were opened several times. ② At the time of the opening of the instant program, Defendant A was accessible to the instant program without any restriction, and there was no secret setting to block access to the request by the complainant company for deletion or prohibition of use by the complainant company, and the request by the complainant company for deletion was not set at around May 20, 2010 after the opening of the instant program.