Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100.

1. Defendant A, who was the representative director of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and B, located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, 1309, operated D, a file-sharing website, had its members run route and download various digital contents, and gain profits by receiving points in return, and distributing them to business partners.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, on February 28, 2013, members (ID: E) of the above website distributed another person’s copyrighted work by putting up “the cinematographic work’s cinematographic work” in which the Human Entertainment holds copyright on the D website.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deleted the above posts, and did not take necessary measures to prevent copyright infringement, such as taking DNA routing, but neglected it as it, thereby facilitating the act of copyright infringement by the above-mentioned member (ID: E) from around that time to March 23, 2014, and aided and abetted the act of distributing the above-site members’ copyright infringement video works, such as the list of crimes, from around March 2014.

2. Defendant B, a representative, assisted and aided Defendant B, at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, by facilitating the distribution of copyrighted works infringing on copyright in the said manner.

As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that, on March 7, 2014, the prosecution of the instant case was entirely withdrawn, the dismissal judgment should be pronounced.

The main text of Article 140 of the Copyright Act provides for the crime under Article 136 (1) of the same Act due to the infringement of author's property right as an offense subject to victim's complaint. The proviso of Article 140 of the same Act provides that in the event of habitually committing the crime, a public prosecution may be instituted without filing any complaint.

Here, the term “Habitual” is the actor’s behavior that repeatedly infringes on copyright.