The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant

A A Fines of 5,00,000 won, Defendant B and Defendant C of each fine of 2,00,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant crime by misapprehending the legal doctrine is subject to a victim’s complaint. Defendant A’s crime is the case subject to a victim’s complaint. Defendant A’s accusation against Defendant A is the United Nations Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Preferential”).

2) The term “rovirat” refers to “rovirat” (hereinafter “rovirat”) as a copyright holder of poppy character.

(2) On September 20, 2011, Defendant A entered into a contract for commercialization with a domestic company with the right to commercialization of poppy, a holder of the right to commercialization of the character copyright (hereinafter referred to as “mard”) on the following grounds: (a) the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the right to file a complaint in an offense subject to victim’s complaint; and (b) the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that led to the judgment.

In January 23, 2012, Liuridi entered into a commercialization contract directly with Liurisoon.

Defendant

A has a justifiable reason to believe that there was a right to use the Lao copyright.

The first instance court's conviction against Defendant A is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

3) The sentencing of the first instance of the unfair sentencing decision (fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable. (B) Defendant B was unaware of the fact that the clothing sold by himself infringes on the copyright of the romanian.

The first instance court's conviction against Defendant B is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2) The sentencing of the first instance of the unfair sentencing decision (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable. C. Defendant C (Defendant C1) was aware that the Defendant had properly acquired the copyright of poppy character attached to the clothes supplied by Defendant A on the clothes provided by Defendant A.

The first instance court's conviction against Defendant C is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2) The sentencing of the first instance on the unfair sentencing of an administrative fine of KRW 5 million (the fine of KRW 5 million is too unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the summary of the facts charged in this case against Defendant A was infringed on the copyright of the Lao for profit-making purposes.

Gu.