All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Taking into account the following circumstances as to the gist of the grounds of appeal, evidence produced by the Prosecutor is admissible as evidence by applying exceptions to the rule of exclusion from illegally collected evidence to the evidence, and the facts charged are fully recognized when the causal relation is based on dilution and dilution, probative value of the secondary evidence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

A. The assistant judicial police officer K is Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

A search and inspection warrant (hereinafter referred to as “instant warrant”) shall be issued in the office of the Council.

The execution was conducted, and it was intended to present it to Defendant A who is the responsible manager at the time, but it was suggested to the director of the division because it is not at the site.

The chief Justice of K did not present a separate warrant to the above J as at the site, and the representative L did not at the site.

B. The judicial police assistant K presented this case’s warrant to I, provided oral explanation of criminal facts and the necessity of executing the warrant, and had been in the office.

J did not raise any particular objection despite its hearing.

(c)

I's statement in the original court is considered to have been sufficiently dilution and cut off with the causal relationship with the first evidence by taking place in the state of guaranteeing the cross-examination right of the accused in the court which is not an investigation agency, so it is possible to use it as evidence of guilt.

2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the scope and method of presentation of the instant warrant was erroneous, and thus, the “I’s written statement”, “verification of the results of software inspection”, “the current status of use by PC”, “J, L and I’s PC screen closure” cannot be deemed as evidence collected through lawful procedures, and that the I’s legal statement was dilution or cut out with respect to the person as secondary evidence.

It can not be seen that the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor is in violation of the Copyright Act.