Each of the instant public prosecution against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A’s representative director, and Defendant B is a corporation with the purpose of information and communications service business, manufacturing and selling electrical and electronic equipment, financial service business, and research and development consulting.

Defendant

A around January 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 28, 2013, on the B’s office computers located in Sungnam-si, Co., Ltd., Ltd. (404), 5 of the Chinese language 2007, 2 of the Korean language 2010, 2 of the Korean language 2010, 7 of the “m-off-off 2007,” the copyright of which is copyright, for the victim microfrat Corporation (Micsoft Cpo)”; (b) 2 of the “m-off 2010,” “m-off 2010”; (c) 3 of the Weddow 7, 3 of the victims’ copyright without authorization; and (d) 1 of the victims’ copyright system to use the program without authorization.

B. Defendant B’s representative director, the Defendant Company B, infringed the victims’ copyright in relation to the Defendant Company’s business.

2. Determination

(a) Defendant A: Articles 141 and 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act; and

(b) Offenses subject to prosecution: The main sentence of Article 140 of the Copyright Act.

(c) Revocation of complaint: The letter of withdrawal of complaint filed on December 30, 2013;

(d) Judgment dismissing public prosecution: Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act;