1. From February 29, 2016 to October 201, 2019, the Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff KRW 54,00,000 and the Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to the judgment below 2. The ground of the judgment of the court of first instance 4.

(b).

In addition to the following 3. Paragraph, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The Defendants asserted that copyright infringement is not constituted. The Defendants asserted that in order to recognize copyright infringement, the Defendants’ reproduction of the instant program should be recognized from the reproduction of the instant program, and the fact that the program was used should also be recognized. However, the Defendants asserted that copyright infringement was not constituted.

On the other hand, the Copyright Act protects the right of reproduction of copyrighted works. Here, the term "duplicating" means fixing copyrighted works temporarily or permanently on a tangible object, and it does not include the concept of whether they are actually used or the possibility of using them.

(Article 2 subparag. 22 and Article 16 of the Copyright Act). In this case, insofar as the program of this case was reproduced without permission on the Defendant Company’s computer hard disks, the Plaintiff’s reproduction right regarding the program of this case was infringed regardless of its use. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

[In this case, the defendants' liability for damages due to the unauthorized reproduction of the program of this case is recognized, but the illegal reproduction that affected the technical protection measures of the program of this case is installed as a whole in relation to the scope of damages. In light of the fact that all the program of this case were installed, the amount of damages is not calculated by applying Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act (the "amount equivalent to the amount which the copyright owner would normally receive by exercising the copyright) (the "amount equivalent to the amount which the copyright owner would normally receive by exercising the copyright" (Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act).