The defendant was found to have received a work file.

There is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the court below's decision.

2. According to the evidence of determination, the victim selected and downloaded the files of “E”, “F”, and “G”, the victim’s copyrighted work using the DNA program, and during that process, the victim requested the police to investigate the instant IP, along with “M”, “M,” which is the access time information at the time, as well as “M, 13:14:28 seconds at August 13, 2016,” which is the access time information at the time. As a result, the investigative agency requested the provision of communication data on the KT Internet, the above IP access was confirmed as the Internet line installed at the Defendant’s domicile, and the fact that the Defendant is the subscriber is recognized.

As above, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence along with the process of specifying the Defendant as the suspect in violation of the Copyright Act, namely, the address of the connection (MAC, Media Acces Controll) address, which is the unique number of the equipment used by the relevant employee in relation to the instant IP, coincides with the beer address of the Defendant’s computer, and the file of the instant work was not discovered on the Defendant’s computer, but it appears that the file was deleted in the process on September 15, 2016, which was after the Defendant contacted with an investigative agency, since the computer format was copied, the file was sent to the Defendant’s entire deletion file, and the fact that the Defendant used the beer program was known, and the possibility that the Defendant resided in his residence could have used the Defendant’s computer.