A. The infringement amount recognized by the lower court’s judgment is excessive, and Defendant B fulfilled its duty of supervision under the proviso of Article 141 of the Copyright Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant’s each fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc., the Defendants’ assertion is without merit since the Defendants’ infringement of the victims’ copyright is recognized as stated in the lower judgment.

① Whether the amount of infringement stated in the list of crimes in this case is calculated appropriately is irrelevant to the establishment of crimes, and the amount of damages caused by copyright infringement is a matter to be dealt with separately in civil cases.

② Defendant A made a statement at an investigative agency that “a person himself/herself has reproduced and installed programs, and does not provide employees with regular education to prevent the reproduction and use of programs illegally.” In light of this, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant A Co., Ltd. was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent a violation.

B. It should be taken into account that Defendants were not punished for the same offense and recognized that they infringed on other persons’ copyright. However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the nature of the crime of this case that infringed on copyright by using a reproduction computer program and the fact that there was no agreement with the victims, the lower court’s punishment does not seem to have been imposed.

The Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is not reasonable.