Each of the instant public prosecution against the Defendants is dismissed.

[Criminal Facts]

1. On August 13, 2014, Defendant A installed one program of the Victim AACAD 2007 program in a computer installed at the location of the Defendant’s office located in the business office operated by the Defendant, which was around August 13, 2014, and used one program of the Victim A, AutaCAD 2008 program, four program of the Victim AutaD 2008 program, and one program of the Victim A’s NX program, and one program of the Victim’s Deel camp POWER MIL in the Victim’s POP ELL program without the consent of the victims, and used it in the main form and gold design work.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the victim's property right by reproducing the victim's work.

2. As set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article, Defendant B, a representative of the Defendant, was negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent the act of violation, even though the Defendant’s reproduction of the Defendant’s copyrighted works without the consent of the victim’s Oral Seascenc, mentmen’s mentor proton software, ACC, Deel Camp, etc., and infringed on the victim’s property right.

[2] In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's complaint against the defendant on February 15, 2016, which constitutes a crime falling under Article 136 (1) 1 and Article 141 of the Copyright Act and Article 136 (1) 1 of the same Act, can be prosecuted only when the victim's complaint is filed under Article 140 of the same Act. The complainant revoked the complaint against the defendant on February 15, 2016, after the indictment of this case was filed.

Therefore, each of the instant public prosecution against the Defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.