All of the public prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The facts charged in this case

1. The defendant A is the representative director of the corporation B in Ansan-gu F, Ansan-si, who is in charge of the above company's business.

From March 2012 to March 21, 2013, the Defendant used “Offic 2007 Enbrise 2, 2010 Enbrise 2, Offic 2010 work work work,” “Offic effic xP Develer 1, Visio 2010 Pudio 2010 Pudio 2008 Tudio 208 Eudio 2008 Effic 200 Effic work,” “10 Effic 200 Effic work,” “10 Effic 4 Work’s copyrighted work,” and “10 Effic 4 Work’s copyrighted work,” which is a victim’s copyrighted work, at the above company’s office.

2. Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing industrial robots and their parts and systems.

The representative director of the defendant infringed the author's property rights of the victims in relation to the defendant's business at the time and place in Paragraph A.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act and prosecuted only upon a complaint under Article 140 of the same Act.

However, since the complainant revoked the complaint on June 1, 2013, which was after the prosecution of this case, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.