logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.02.09 2016나2053136
손해배상(지)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows 2. The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used in this court as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the following 3. Thus, this court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) 4. 6 pages 4. 4. : “No. 4. 5. 5. 5. 5. 1. ; “No. 1, 4, 17. ;” “No. 1. 1. 1.

B. From 4th 11th to 4th 1th 2th 2th 2th 11th “Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office”, the amended prosecutor filed a summary order against the Defendant B as a crime of aiding and abetting in violation of the Copyright Act pursuant to Articles 136(2)4 and 124(1)3 of the Copyright Act, and Article 32 of the Criminal Act. The court issued a summary order of KRW 10,000,000 against the Defendants on May 11, 2012.

(Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 High Court No. 8492). 2) The Defendants filed an application for formal trial against the above summary order, but on June 28, 2012, the court was sentenced to a conviction (each fine of KRW 5,00,000) (Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 High Court No. 2012 High Court No. 2995), and the above conviction became final and conclusive around that time.

(c) Modification of six pages 6 degrees to “master’s degree”;

D. The 7th page 3 and 4 were found to have been modified as follows, and there were a number of files working from the Defendant Company’s employees’ office computer to the instant program.

E. From 7th page 13 to 7th page 14, the files discovered in the business-use computers of the employees of the Defendant Company’s employees of the revised Defendant Company as follows were drafted in the course of Eyeping or tracking.

arrow