The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant distributed the program 2-1 program (M) of this case via the media file reproduction program of “D” is a program that was completely different from the program (N) of the Victim F Co., Ltd. by requesting H to develop the previous program in a way that is completely different from the program (N) of the Victim F Co., Ltd., and the Defendant is a new program that is entirely different from the primary program of this case and its copyright is not a victim company. Thus, the Defendant’s distribution of the program of this case No. 2-1 does not infringe on the victim’s property right.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, with the detailed statement of the judgment on the argument under the title “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.”

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, as shown in the judgment below, it can be sufficiently recognized that ① the development of a new advertisement display program with the focus of the program No. 1 as a supplement to the schedule No. 2 in accordance with the victim company’s business instruction, which added shower function to the program No. 1 in this case, and ② H provided the defendant with the program No. 2-1 in this case with the name of the program No. 2 in this case and the program No. 2-1 in this case changed at the defendant’s request. Thus, the program No. 2 in this case constitutes a derivative copyrighted work of the victim company’s copyrighted work, and the defendant distributed the program No. 2 in this case and the core source code of this case identical to the program No. 2-1 in this case, thereby infringing the victim company’s property right to the program No. 2 in this case.

Therefore, the program No. 2 of this case is the case.