The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that the MOC system is a system that efficiently manages the broadcasting business process and broadcasting information of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and it is difficult for the complainant to ascertain who is the petitioner’s employee of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) to ascertain who is the copyright of the program stored in G server because it is difficult for the complainant to ascertain who is the copyright of the program. ② The program files in the judgment of the court below were created or modified through the improvement of the MOC system and the development project under the service contract between G and B, and the subcontract between B and the complainant, and the program files in the case of this case were only a number of programs constituting the MOC system, and ③ the improvement and development of the MOC system were stored in the G server, and it was difficult for the prosecutor to find the Defendant not guilty of the previous work files on the ground that it was difficult to find the Defendant guilty of the previous work files due to the lack of prior knowledge by the prosecutor.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in violation of logical and empirical rules and free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.