Defendant 1 and 1

Hank-Gyeong-Gyeong

Law Firm Rois Law Firm, Attorney Kang Jong-soo

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to make an additional payment of the amount corresponding to each of the above fines.

1. Defendant 1 is a person working as the president of the ○○○ Private Teaching Institute located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted) and, in the case of using another person’s work, the source should be specified, despite the fact that the person’s work should be used

On May 10, 2006, prior to holding an occasional strategic briefing session for the pertinent private teaching institute against the students of students who will be admitted in the So-dong Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, the following: (a) contains an issue of the assertion of Hegren and Dooono, which was set up as a question of 200 on the extension of the call issue, and the issue of Hegren and Doono, which was set up as an issue of 200 on the presentation of the consideration of the year 200; (b) acknowledges the content of the cancellation and an example response drawn up by Non-Indicted 1 Co., Ltd. in the manner of indicating “A private teaching institute”; (c) distribute 100 students who attended the above presentation to use the work without specifying the source

2. Defendant 2 Company:

Defendant 1, who is his employee, committed the act of violation as described in paragraph 1 with respect to the defendant's business.

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Statement on Nonindicted 2’s statement

1. A complaint (including attached documents);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendants: Articles 100 subparag. 1-2 and 34 of the Copyright Act

Defendant 2: Article 103 of the Copyright Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Even in cases where the quotation of a work already made public due to the limitation of author's property right is permitted under the interpretation of the provisions related to the Copyright Act, it is obvious that the source should be specified, and rather, it would be consistent with the purport of restricting author's property right when citing a work made public. Therefore, the defendants' defense counsel's assertion that the defendants' failure to specify the source as stated in facts charged constitutes a legitimate act of protecting the copyright holder

Judges Kim Jong-Un