Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a professor in the social science and social welfare department at D University.

Victim E written the “H” portion of the book “G” published on February 25, 2003 by the CF (hereinafter “PP publication”).

On March 5, 2011, the Defendant infringed on the victim’s property right by reproducing and distributing the content written by the victim without the consent of the victimized party or by reproducing and distributing the said book to the “J” portion of the “G” published by the publication of the book in the publication complex in Pakistan (hereinafter “after-sale publication”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Publication contract, a copy of the written reason for filing an objection to provisional disposition, a copy of the judgment, K booker, G booker, a copy of the research ethics committee's findings on the suspicion of research misconduct, and a copy of the decision of provisional disposition (Evidence 26 No. 36);

1. Selection of a fine under Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act and Article 136 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 1, 201)

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. Summary of the assertion

A. According to Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a prosecution may not be instituted against a case for which a decision to dismiss an application for adjudication has become final and conclusive unless other important evidence is found.

In this regard, the Daegu High Court decided to institute a public prosecution even though other important evidence was not found with respect to the case in which the dismissal ruling of the previous application for a public prosecution became final and conclusive. The above decision is illegal and unfair in violation of the legislative intent of Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the indictment of this case in accordance with the above decision is also inconsistent with the law.

B. At the time of the production of the preceding publication, the Defendant and the victim.