A. Defendant 1) The Defendant is merely the nominal owner of the business registration, and the actual operator D is not only the Defendant’s husband H but also the Defendant’s husband H, and the Defendant or H did not instruct the Defendant to use the computer program without permission, and the D employee F was a short-term reproduction program at will. However, the lower court found Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s factual misunderstanding by asserting the same as the grounds for appeal in this case. In addition to the above judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the lower part of the “a summary of evidence” of the judgment. In addition to the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s argument.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, in light of the spirit of substantial direct trial under our criminal procedure law, the first trial judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

In exceptional cases where maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is deemed significantly unfair, either there are special circumstances or the result of the first instance examination and the result of the additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial is concluded, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair.