3. The Defendant had deleted the related infringing copies of the software. The Plaintiff''s claim of ceasing infringement should not be supported.

　　4. For that the Defendant''s infringing act was not serious in nature and it had ceased infringement and continued to buy the software of the Plaintiff, the decree for compensation is enough to make up for the Plaintiff''s losses. Therefore, the Plaintiff''s claim of giving a civil sanction to the Defendant should not be supported.

　　In a word, the Court of the first instance rendered a judgment that the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff''s losses and rejected other claims of the Plaintiff. The Defendant should bear the legal costs of the first instance.

　　Part 2. Brief Introduction to the Second Instance of the Case

　　The Appellant didn''t agree with the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Higher People''s Court of Z Province.

　　The Appellant （the Defendant of the first instance） alleged that: 1. The software involved in the Case was used by the intern for personal study. The Appellant had never used it for commercial purposes and didn''t infringe upon the Appellee''s copyright. 2. The compensation amount of the first instance was too high. The Appellant requests the Court to abrogate the judgment of first instance and reject the claims of the Appellee.

　　The Appellee （the Plaintiff of the first instance） argued that: The facts were clearly ascertained and the evidences were sufficient. The law applied was correct, and the Appellee requests the Court to affirm the judgment of the first instance.

　　The Court of the second instance held that: The Appellant infringed upon the Appellee''s copyright of the software involved in the Case, and the compensation amount determined in the first instance is correct.