Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,00

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 2017, the Defendant displayed the “D” type of the Defendant’s operation of the first floor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in a manner of inserting the type of “E”, such as F, G, H, H, I, J, J, and K race, which is identical or similar to the character of “E”, a Japanese corporation E’s copyrighted work, into a machine that is identical or similar to that of the Japanese corporation E, and thus, infringed the said company’s property right for profit.

2. On December 2016, Defendant B: (a) was extracted from the “M” type of the Defendant’s operation of the first floor of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L 1st, and was displayed in a manner of inserting the type of “pinant type”, such as Jin type, Nin type, Pin type, Pin type, Qin type, Rin type, and Sin type, which is identical or similar to the “E”, a work of Japanese stock company E, into a machine, and thus, infringed the said company’s property right for profit-making purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness T, U, V, and W;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. On-the-spot infringement photographs and the sentences seized by the Defendants subject to the Act on the Promotion of Fixed Articles, Etc., are not personal evidence, but circumstantial evidence, and thus, they should not be confiscated.

1. Relevant Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Determination of fines

1. Defendants in custody in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (the Defendants and their defense counsel claimed that there was no intention because they knew of the race as well as the fact that they were imported in parallel. Defendant B made a statement that they purchased at the average of 4,000 won per man-made type at an investigation agency. Defendant B made it difficult to purchase the same amount even if it was imported in parallel (2:2:52 of investigation records; Defendant A received some tax invoices related to the race while purchasing a race at an investigation agency).