beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.11.27 2013고정1523

저작권법위반

Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine; 50.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of the corporation B, which is located in the 6th floor of the member-gu D factory in Ansan-si in Gyeonggi-si.

Defendant

B Co., Ltd. is a company that manufactures electronic parts at the same place.

1. No person shall infringe upon author's property right or other property rights protected pursuant to the Copyright Act (excluding the rights under Article 93) by means of reproduction, public performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lease, or preparation of secondary works;

그럼에도 불구하고, 피고인 A은 2013. 1. 7.부터 위 주식회사 B 사무실에 설치된 17대의 컴퓨터에 고소인 마이크로소프트 코퍼레이션의 컴퓨터 운영체제인 윈도우즈 및 응용프로그램인 오피스, 고소인 한글과 컴퓨터의 문서작성 프로그램인 한글, 고소인 파라메트릭 테크놀로지 코퍼레이션의 3차원 설계프로그램인 프로엔지니어와 고소인 다쏘시스템 솔리드웍스 코퍼레이션의 3차원 설계 프로그램인 쏠리드웍스 등의 프로그램을 복제하여 사용하였다.

2. Defendant B, the representative director, Defendant B, Defendant B, and Defendant B, committed the above violation in relation to the business of Defendant B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Complaint;

1. The current status of installation and use of computer programs, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes on lists of computer programs;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Articles 141 and 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act

2. Defendant A of detention in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act.

3. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant and defense counsel. (1) The evidence stated in the judgment is aimed at controlling E, an employee of the complainant.