All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. Defendant C, as the representative director of A, is a person in charge of managing the computer and computer programs of the above company, and Defendant A is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing power transmission devices.

Defendant

C On February 14, 2013, the Defendant had 22 copies of the “AutCAD 2010” of the “Autace AbC” made by infringing copyright without the consent of the copyright holder of a computer program, and had the employees of the said company use copies of the “Autace C&C” of the “AutabC” which was made by infringing copyright without the consent of the copyright holder of the computer program for business purposes.

Accordingly, the Defendant infringed on the copyright of the copyright holder respectively.

B. The Defendant Co., Ltd. violated the copyright of the copyright holder as above in relation to the Defendant’s business at the above date, time and place.

2. We examine the judgment. Each of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 136(2)4, Article 124(1) or Article 141, Article 136(2)4, or Article 124(1) of the Copyright Act, and cannot be punished against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 140 subparag. 1 of the same Act. Since victims withdraw their wish to punish the Defendants after the prosecution of this case, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.