The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Defendant A appears to have made an error in Defendant B’s indictment of Defendant B.

Defendant B is a representative director, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing industrial robots.

Defendant

A around January 2019, the Defendant, even though he knows that one copy of a program made by the Victim F (the reproduction prevention file in the fixed work program) that was made by infringing the victim’s copyright, was installed in the said company’s PC and used by the said company employees.

As a result, the Defendant knowingly used the reproduction of the program made by infringing the copyright of the program in the course of business.

B. Defendant Company B, a director of Defendant Company, committed the above act of violation in relation to the Defendant Company’s business at the same time and at the same place as set forth in paragraph (1) above.

2. Determination

(a) Applicable provisions of Acts: Defendant A: Articles 141, 136 (2) 4, and 124 (1) 3 of the Copyright Act; Articles 124 (1) 3 and 124 (1) 3 of the Copyright Act;

(b) Offenses subject to prosecution: The main sentence of Article 140 of the Copyright Act.

C. On October 23, 2019, after the institution of the instant indictment, the victim’s revocation of complaint was submitted.

(d) Judgment dismissing public prosecution: Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act;