Defendants shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A Co., Ltd. (Representative Director B) is a corporation that manufactures solar power generation machinery in Changwon-si D Building, NONS 610, and Defendant B is the representative director of the said corporation.

1. At around 13:00 on May 31, 2017, Defendant B, at the place of business of the said A Co., Ltd., Defendant B, one “AutCAD 2008,” one “AutaCAD 2014,” and one “AutaCAD 2016,” one copy of the “AutaD 2016,” with the knowledge of the fact, infringed the victim’s copyright by using it in the course of business.

2. The Defendant Company A, at the same date and place as in the preceding paragraph, infringed upon the Defendant’s copyright as in the preceding paragraph in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E, and part of witness F, legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of statutes on screen pictures and business registration certificates after the result of inspection of the computer software of the complainant company;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

(a) Defendant B: Article 136(2)4 of the Copyright Act and Article 124(1)3 of the same Act (elective selection);

B. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) Articles 141, 136(2)4, and 124(1)3 (excluding penalty) of the Copyright Act; (b) Articles 124(1)3 (a) of the same Act; (c) the primary contents of Defendant A’s duties; (d) design-related software programs are essential for the performance of the said duties; and (e) Defendant B’s status and role in the said company; and (e) the intent of Defendant A’s employees on the part of the business of using illegal reproduction AutaCAD programs is sufficiently recognized.

Defendant

B as long as there is no evidence to recognize that Defendant A was responsible for the violation of the Copyright Act and that Defendant A was responsible for the prevention of the violation, Defendant A also bears the responsibility for the violation of the Copyright Act).

1. Articles 70(1) and 69 of the Criminal Act, which are the detention of a workhouse (Defendant B).