All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim’s E program (hereinafter “instant program”) is installed on the computer of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). However, this is because the Defendant Co., Ltd. unilaterally installed the instant program on the Defendant’s company’s computer at the time when the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) purchases heavy and high CNC CNC storage machine (hereinafter “instant machine”) from G (hereinafter “G”), and Defendant B was unaware of such fact.

Thus, Defendant B did not have an intention to infringe the victim’s copyright by means of reproduction, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the Copyright Act, and it does not constitute a violation of the Copyright Act under the premise that Defendant B committed a violation of the Copyright Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below appeared as a witness in the court below and stated that "F had the program of this case installed on the Defendant company computer at the time when the R director, who is an employee of the Defendant company, sold the machine in G," and the Defendant company is a small-scale company with only three employees, and it is hard to see that Defendant B was unaware of the establishment of the program of this case, which is known to the Defendant company by employees, because the two employees were not small-scale companies with three employees. ② The instant machine was sold to the Defendant company and the CCTV was produced by the Defendant company for the test operation.