Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On November 21, 2012, the Defendant infringed on the victim’s copyright by installing and reproducing a program 1, around January 1, 2013, around July 1, 2013, at the “D” office operated by the Defendant, as set forth in C and 901, two F Programs (not less than five million won at the market price per unit) owned by the Victim E, Inc., Ltd., on the five computers, and around January 21, 2012, one program 1, and one program 1, around July 1, 2013, on April 1, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Complaint;

1. Program registration certificate;

1. Business registration certificate (D);

1. A confirmation table as a result of the SW inspection;

1. The F Software Use Contract (P. 63 No. 63);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act and the selection of fines for offenses; and Article 136 (1) 1 of the same Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Judgment on the assertion that public prosecution is dismissed

A. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant did not have the purpose of profit-making, and thus, the instant facts charged constitute a crime subject to victim’s complaint

Accordingly, there was no complaint by H, the joint author of the program described in the facts charged (hereinafter “work of this case”).

In addition, around December 2013, the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim E”) filed the instant complaint at around September 11, 2014 after six months from the date on which the Defendant knew that the Defendant’s act as recorded in the facts charged was infringed on copyright.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case cannot be viewed as a legitimate complaint by the complainant, and it should be dismissed as it is based on the expiration of the period of the complaint.

B. The prosecution against the offense of violating the Copyright Act, which is stipulated in Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act, requires a complaint.