The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are innocent.

1. The prosecutor's appellate brief (misunderstanding of facts) was working for Defendant B;

In light of the fact that Defendant A’s reproduction program of this case was installed on the company’s computer and stated to the effect that the employees knew of the fact that it was used for business purposes, Defendant A, who allowed the above circumstances, had a duty to verify whether it was used for the reproduction program in the company even after purchasing the authentic program, but was not obliged to verify the use of the reproduction program in the company, and the time when the reproduction program of this case was installed on the company’s computer was conducted in close vicinity to the time when search and seizure was conducted, Defendant A can recognize the fact that the reproduction program of this case was used for business purposes in collusion with the employees of the company, and Defendant B, the representative of the company, committed the above violation.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the Defendants not guilty by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal on the ex officio judgment.

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor requested changes in the indictment of this case as follows, and this court permitted changes in the indictment, and thus the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the revised facts charged merely excludes certain “F” from the facts charged, among the employees of Defendant A, who are the public advisers of Defendant A, from the entry of the facts charged, and the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, this is examined.

B. (1) The grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) the facts charged prior to the amendment and the facts charged prior to the amendment of the judgment of the court below; (b) Defendant A was the representative of the Co., Ltd. B; and (c) Defendant B, a corporation with Suwon-si E around February 13, 2015.