The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing) G is not only a (art) work protected under the Copyright Act, but also a specific explanation given by Defendant A in Articles 3, 16, and 4, 16, and 3 of the original decision as stated in the original decision.

In light of the fact that the act of designing letters has no common understanding and rather used Gphone programs without authority, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) who is an employee of Defendant A and Defendant A on the ground that the act of designing letters is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, and the judgment of the court below has no choice but to have an unreasonable influence on the sentencing of Defendant A and Defendant Company.

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court: (a) it is difficult to view G as a work or art work subject to protection under the Copyright Act because it is difficult to view it as a creative expression of ideas or emotions on arts; (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it is a work protected under the Copyright Act; (c) the design method of the word written in Defendant A’s packaging does not constitute an act of downloading the G program itself and using the program; (d) it does not constitute an act of “duplicing” or “aduplicing”; and (e) the former Computer Program Protection Act was amended by Act No. 9625, Apr. 22, 2009; and (e) was repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Copyright Act, which was enforced on July 23, 2009; and (e)

The defendant A is not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the violation of the Act, and the violation of the Act on the Copyright of the defendant A or the former Computer Programs Protection Act is recognized.