All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (helping and aiding obscenity 2012 high group 9907) to provide commercial profits to the users who run the web hard site. As such, Defendant A’s payment of points of KRW 1,500,000 to the co-defendant B is merely a unique operation method of the web hard, not aiding and abetting the distribution of obscene materials in Co-defendant B, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant A had the intention of aiding and abetting the Defendant in light of Defendant A’s obscenity’s obscenity and control efforts (aided and abetting obscenity 2012 high group 1081 Copyright Act). Since providing commercial profits to the web harder, providing commercial profits is the essence of the operation of the web hard, the interpretation of Article 102(1)3(b) of the Copyright Act should not be included in the scope of exemption of all the above Defendants, the above interpretation should not be made.

② Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act provides that “In order for a claimant to a right to request the suspension of reproduction or transmission pursuant to Article 103 of the Copyright Act, it shall be submitted to an online service provider along with a written request along with a supporting document. Therefore, the claimant to a right shall prepare a written request for suspension in compliance with the form prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Copyright Act and submit a request for the suspension of reproduction or transmission. The claimant to a right of this case did not request the suspension of reproduction or transmission, and therefore, the Defendants are obliged to suspend reproduction