The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the user of the file creation site account (ID: B and written name: C).

Author's property rights and other property rights protected pursuant to the Copyright Act shall not be infringed by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lending, or preparation of secondary works.

Nevertheless, around January 17, 2013, the Defendant had access to the above website 642 and 1504, which was the Defendant’s residence in the past, and had not obtained prior approval from the Kanpo City D apartment 642 and 1504, which was the copyright holder, posted the film called “work,” which is “work,” on the above website so that many and unspecified members may get off the film.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the copyright of the above corporation.

2. The conclusion is that a crime falling under Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act, which can be prosecuted only upon complaint under Article 140 of the same Act, is an offense falling under Article 136(1)1 of the same Act.

However, according to the statement of the withdrawal of a complaint and the statement of the non-application for punishment, the complainant can recognize the fact that he/she revoked the complaint against the defendant on September 23, 2013, which was after the indictment of this case was instituted.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.