All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that Defendant A did not have a habit of copyright infringement, and thus, the crime of this case constitutes a crime subject to victim's complaint. Even if there was no legitimate complaint filed by the victim, the prosecution procedure of this case was in violation of the law and null and void. ② Defendant A did not assist the crime of this case without aiding and abetting the crime of this case since Defendant A took measures to prevent copyright infringement using DNA pening service, etc.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants (a fine of two million won per fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) 1) The former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 1110, Dec. 2, 2011) provides that the case where the infringement of author’s property right was committed habitually for profit, the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 11110, Dec. 2, 201) provides that the case where the infringement of author’s property right was committed habitually for profit shall be subject to victim’s complaint. The amended Copyright Act provides that the case where the infringement of author’s property right was committed for profit or habitually for profit, and the amended Copyright Act applies as a single offense subject to victim’s complaint. The main text of Article 140 provides that the crime of Article 136(1) of the same Act, which was committed for profit or habitually for profit as prescribed in subparagraph 1 of the same Article, shall be excluded in the case where the crime was committed for profit-making purposes or habitually, and “for profit-making purposes” in this case refers to the purpose of obtaining economic benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4397).