The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant sent E.C.’s work to the “B server” server was time limit to transmit the “EPS” file to B server at the business presentation of “B”, a bilateral learning service developed by the Defendant, at the business presentation of “B,” and there was no fact that he sent E.C.’s work to B server for the purpose of using it for private teaching institute lessons as indicated in the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the lower court.

2) On July 30, 2013, part of the facts charged in the instant case that “CMS manual” was operated as “CP manual,” including a producer’s work, is not related to the existing B business, as the Defendant started and opened independently from July 30, 2013, and the Defendant’s business was operated on the instant car page on November 18, 2013.

B. Sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court (an amount of five million won) against the Defendant, which was sentenced by the lower court.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the appellate trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the following [the revised indictment], and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained since the subject of the judgment was changed by the court's permission.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope of determining the revised facts charged, and this is examined below.

[Revised charges] The Defendant provided a large amount of learning content by reproducing and sharing existing language teaching materials while running a "B" franchise business, which is a service that allows the Defendant to learn in both sides with smartphones.