Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Since Defendant A, the representative of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) related to Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), did not directly reproduce the program by infringing the copyright, Defendant A’s act of violating the Copyright Act with respect to Defendant A does not constitute a crime of violating the Copyright Act.

B. Around November 2011, Defendant Company purchased NS SY Proal NLT (hereinafter “NLT program”) from DNA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “diN”), a Korean total market of the Victim L&C, Korea, around November 201, from around November 201, but could not immediately use the said program due to licensing certification work.

Accordingly, DNA recommended the employees of the Defendant Company to install and use a Track (NSYS) 10 LAS (NSYS) and a Track (NSYS) 13 grass Back (NYS) 13.

Since then, in the process of establishing a nLT program and supporting the normal operation of the program, the above cacker continued to have been installed, but did not raise any problem.

Ultimately, the program reproduction was made in response to the recommendation of the establishment of DNA objection to whom the above damage was delegated the authority to permit the use of the cream, and there was an implied approval, and thus, the copyright of the above victim was not infringed.

(c)

The Defendant Company purchased six program 2009 program, and 8 employees of the Defendant Company used the above 6 license kisk and installed more than 2 program. Thus, the Defendants did not have the intention of copyright infringement.

2. When the ex officio judgment prosecutor made a request for permission to change the indictment as stated in the summary of the facts charged in the instant case below, and this court made a request for permission to change the indictment.