All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. Article 29(1) of the former Computer Program Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9625, Apr. 22, 2009; hereinafter “former Program Protection Act”; hereinafter “Programming”) provides that “No person shall infringe another person’s program copyright by means of reproduction, adaptation, distribution, and transmission without a legitimate title.” In addition, Article 29(4)2 of the former Computer Program Protection Act provides that “the act of a person who knowingly acquired the reproduction of a program created by infringing a program copyright for his/her business uses it for the purpose of business” shall be punished by a violation of Article 29(1) and Article 29(4)2.

Article 29 (4) 2 of the former Program Protection Act does not include the act of using a program itself in the form of infringing the original program copyright, but it is a provision prepared to ensure the effectiveness of the protection of program copyright by deeming the reproduction of a program created and distributed by the act of infringement to be an act of infringing business upon the knowledge of such circumstance.

In light of the legislative intent and language of the provision of Article 29(4)2 of the former Program Protection Act, a person who creates a program copyright through reproduction modification, etc. cannot be deemed as a person who acquires a reproduction of a program created by an infringement act under the above provision.

Therefore, it is sufficient to punish him as a violation of Article 29 (1) of the former Program Protection Act, and Article 29 (4) 2.