In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The costs of lawsuit.

The defendant is a corporation established on October 16, 2003 for the purpose of environmental impact assessment agent business, etc. in the Gu building C, 1817 during the Gyeonggi-si.

From July 21, 2015 to December 28, 2015, the Defendant’s employees, had at the Defendant’s branch office located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 19 copies of Adrobe 9.0 program’s illegal reproduction, 19 copies of Adrobe CS program’s illegal reproduction, 10 copies of Photos CS2 program, 10 copies of Photoscop CS2 program, 4 copies of illegal reproduction of Photoscop CS6 Port, 19 copies of Photoscop CS6 Port program’s copyright, and 19 copies of Adrobe 2010’s program’s illegal reproduction, 16 copies of Adro214, 2016 program’s illegal reproduction.

As a result, the defendant's non-persons who are the employees of the defendant committed copyright infringement for the purpose of profit-making.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to personal search results and other evidential materials;

1. Article 141 of the relevant Act and Articles 136 (2) 4 and 124 (1) 3 of the Copyright Act concerning the option of criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the signature and seal of the processing person to whom the warrant was executed is omitted, so it is difficult to find who actually executed the warrant, and that the protocol of search and inspection was not prepared, and that search is conducted to the program of Adbebes and Autsk beyond the scope of the subject of search and that it is a separate search and inspection under the Criminal Procedure Act.