All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, and C

A. In a case where it is unclear as to the assertion on the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the amendment of indictment, the court may order the prosecutor to attend the indictment in accordance with Article 141 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and subsequently dismiss the prosecution for the unspecified reasons in the charges that the prosecutor does not clarify it. Thus, if the prosecutor requests the amendment of indictment for the purpose of clarifying the unclear description of the indictment, it is reasonable to permit it.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17384, Jan. 28, 2016). After remanding the case, the lower court (hereinafter “original trial”) determined that the prosecutor’s indictment was subject to adjudication according to changes in indictment, with the purport that the prosecutor clearly revises the ambiguous description of the indictment at the lower court.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding changes in indictment, or by violating the binding force of the higher court judgment.

B. Article 136(1) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 10807, Jun. 30, 2011; hereinafter “former Copyright Act”) provides for the determination of the facts charged regarding the infringement of author’s property right, which is subject to punishment, is clearly indicated in the content of the infringement, such as the type and form of the work and method of infringement subject to punishment, so that there is no difficulty in exercising the defendant’s right to defense. The facts charged are not specified on the ground that the identity of each author’s property right holder of copyrighted works is not specified.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1196, Dec. 15, 2016). The lower court: (a) although the author of author’s property right was partially omitted in the list of crimes attached to the lower court, the facts charged and the works subject to infringement on the list of crimes attached to the lower court.