The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the violation of the Copyright Act does not aim at profit making, and thus, constitutes a crime subject to prosecution which can be prosecuted only upon a victim's complaint. Although the victim's complainant's complainant's complainant's agent revoked the complaint of this case against the defendant before the judgment of the court below was rendered, the court below did not dismiss the public prosecution of this case and sentenced the suspension of sentence to the defendant. The court below erred in the misapprehension

2. Where a person commits an offense falling under Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act, a public prosecution may be instituted only upon a victim’s complaint pursuant to the main sentence of Article 140 of the Copyright Act. However, Article 140 proviso 1 of the Copyright Act provides that where a copyright is infringed for profit-making purposes, the provision on an offense subject to victim’s complaint is not applicable, and “for profit-making purposes” refers to “for gain of personal economic benefits”

(2) Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act provides that “The purpose of profit-making” itself is not the elements of the crime of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has no profit-making purpose, as alleged by the prosecutor, merely because the facts charged in this case are not stated “for profit-making purpose” but stated “for profit-making purpose” in the facts charged in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do6479, Sept. 26, 2014).