Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing measurement, testing, navigation, control, and precision equipment, and B is a person in charge of practice as a director of the above company.

No one may reproduce the author's property rights or other property rights protected pursuant to this Act, but the defendant, a working-level manager of the defendant, has infringed the above author's property rights by reproducing two "F of copyright E" and one "H of copyright company G" at the defendant's office located in the defendant's office located in the north-gu Seoul Metropolitan City building C building D of the above Y on January 25, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each certificate of software registration;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as confirmation table as a result of the SW inspection;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 141 and 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act concerning facts constituting an offense (excluding punishment);

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

1. As to the assertion that legitimate existence of a complaint is doubtful, the defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that there is no legitimate complaint. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the attorney I was delegated from E on August 17, 2015 to conduct criminal complaints, etc. due to criminal acts relating to the copyright, patent rights, etc. of the above company in the Republic of Korea, and the relevant power of delegation is effective until withdrawn in writing. The above attorney at law was delegated by G on December 10, 2015 all of the acts related to copyright protection and criminal litigation, etc. on behalf of the above company as the victim, and the above delegation was effective until December 31, 2016. The above attorney at law recognized the fact that each program copyright E and G violated the Copyright Act as the representative of the defendant.

The defendant and defense counsel.