All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Determination on the appeal filed by Defendant A and B

A. A. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenario) is that the relevant power of attorney in the name of the Congo, the copyright holder of the computer program files operated in the VTS (VS) cannot be deemed to have been made by a person who has the authority to delegate the right of complaint on behalf of the Norway, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty without dismissing a public prosecution against the facts charged in the instant case subject to an offense subject to prosecution, even though it is inappropriate.

B. In the case of a complaint by an agent under Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is sufficient if the power of representation is actually proved to have been granted by a legitimate complainant, and there is no special limitation on the method.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3081 Decided September 4, 2001). In light of the following circumstances revealed by the record, the letter of delegation of the complaint of this case was prepared by S that, around July 5, 2012, “Pressor” was in the position of “Pressor” (in the translation, “the president” is stated) from the Emort Rawls’s office, and was notarized by a notary public in the region where the Emort Rawls’s office is located, and is promoting and operating the VTS-related high technology, and that the complaint of this case, which was the measure of preventing the unauthorized copying of the VTS operating computer program, was not deemed to have been raised against the intent of the ETS Rawls’s office, the letter of delegation of the complaint of this case was duly delegated by the representative of the Emor who is the legitimate holder of the right to file the complaint of this case.