All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. At around 11:10 on August 5, 2015, Defendant A, as indicated in the list of offenses attached hereto, installed four copies of a total of 47 reproduction program in four computers located at the company’s office located underground in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D Building, and used it for business purposes, such as: (a) the victim victim strawp company, the victim victim’s company and computers; (b) the victim victim’s microfer camber, the victim’s autofer, the victim stop, and the victim’s fishbre system business, by infringing each program copyright; and (c) the Defendant used it for business purposes, such as having his employees use it or directly using it.

B. Defendant B, at the time and place indicated in paragraph (1) A, the representative of the Defendant, committed an act in violation of the Copyright Act using a reproduced computer program in the course of business by infringing on copyright as above with respect to the Defendant’s business.

2. We examine the judgment. It is a crime falling under Articles 136(2)4 and 124(1)3 of the Copyright Act, which cannot be punished against the victim’s express intent under Article 140 subparag. 1 of the same Act. According to the statement in the withdrawal of complaint filed in the trial records of this case, the victims withdrawn their wish to punish the Defendants on March 29, 2016, which is the date of the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.