All prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. A summary of the facts charged is a representative director of Defendant B, and Defendant B is a corporation that manufactures and sells electronic communications parts.

No person shall infringe on author's property rights or other property rights protected pursuant to the Act by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lending, or preparation of a derivative work.

A. On October 22, 2012, at the office of Defendant B located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Defendant A copied the Microftrop’s m-Office2010, ADR 2006, ADR 2008, ADR 2009, VE Pro 8.0, VE Pro 9.0, VE Pro 9.0, AutCAD 2010, AutoCAD 2010, AutoCAD Mecan, and 2012 program at the office of Defendant B located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, 2012, and used it for the above company’s business without permission.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd., the Defendant of the above No. 1

Defendant A, the representative of Defendant B corporation, at the time and place stated in the paragraph, violated the Copyright Act by infringing upon the copyright holder’s copyright regarding his business.

2. We examine the judgment. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 140 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act. According to the records, it can be acknowledged that a limited-liability DNA attorney-at-law delegated by the victims with the authority to cancel the complaint of this case from the victims around May 23, 2013, the prosecution of this case against the Defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.