All prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who served as the representative director of Defendant B.

No person shall reproduce, perform publicly, transmit publicly, exhibit, distribute, prepare or lend a derivative work the author’s right to author’s property without the consent of the copyright holder.

A. Notwithstanding Defendant A, Defendant A, at the office of Defendant B, which was located in the U.S. Co., Ltd. in the U.S. from the date of infertility to October 17, 2012, illegally copied and used a total of 72 computer programs equivalent to KRW 45,073,00 in the market price of refined goods, as described in the attached list of crimes.

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

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing industrial machinery.

Defendant

B, at the date and place specified in paragraph (1) above, A, the representative of Defendant B, violated the Copyright Act by infringing upon the copyright holder’s copyright in relation to Defendant B’s 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, the attorney-at-law of the limited liability law firm (with limited liability) delegated by the victims with the authority to cancel the complaint can be recognized as having withdrawn the complaint against the Defendants around May 13, 2013, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, 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.