Defendant

All appeals filed by Co., Ltd. B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since Defendant B’s employee, a company, did not have installed the victim’s “mail campaign” software, there was no infringement on the victim’s copyright, it is unreasonable to apply both punishment provisions to Defendant B as much as he provided considerable attention and supervision to the employees to educate the employees to use the well-known software and to prevent the employees from violating the Copyright Act.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A as a software manager of Defendant B, even though he knew of the use of illegally reproduced software by the company employees, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant B’s copyright infringement, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. As the lower court properly states, Defendant B, as a company manufacturing car metal type, etc., the Defendant was a company that had 170 employees and 65.4 billion won annual sales (2014). The Defendant intended to employ a staff member in charge of the Mar. 2015 through a public announcement of employment on March 2015. The Defendant provided education on the use of the fixed software since the instant case, but did not provide education on copyright infringement, regular inspection, and management, and the Defendant’s employees’ use of the “Master Camp” was discovered in the PC used by the Defendant’s employees, with considerable attention and supervision to prevent such infringement. In light of the following, the Defendant’s employees used the “Master Camp” and the Defendant exercised due care and supervision to prevent such infringement.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. As the court below properly explained, Defendant A is in charge of purchasing, managing, and inspecting the software program of Defendant B.