The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “SOLPE” under Article 18(2) of the Civil Act, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In the above architectural drawings, the Defendants recognized the fact that the character of the word “SOLPE” is “HY Ulleungdo L.

In principle, unless there are special circumstances under which the core aspect of the fonts (e.g., e., e., e.g., fonts) itself does not constitute a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act, unless there are special circumstances under which the core aspect is undermining the function of information delivery. Thus, Defendant A made Defendant A appear in the letter “SLOPE” in the term “HYll L” in the construction drawings written in the facts charged.

Even if it does not constitute a violation of copyright law due to infringement of author's property right.

Next, in light of the statements in the letter “HY U.S. U.S. L” file (Ttf) by Defendant A and the materials attached to the letter of complaint and the letter of complaint, the complainant appears to have filed a complaint for the unlawful reproduction of the writing file (program).

In view of the foregoing, Defendant A’s act of reproduction on the following grounds: (a) the statement of E in the second suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant A; (b) the statement in the complaint for the preparation of Hanyang Information and Communications Co., Ltd.; and (c) the drawings and images on the homepage alone:

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to the main sentence of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.