Nevertheless, the Defendant received the victim C’s copyright from the phone of “D” body at an irregular time, and then used it on August 13, 2013, thereby infringing the victim’s copyright by using the web site “E”, which is connected to the web site’s cartoon world (webon. drum.ne) and is connected to it, and then used without permission, the word “F” using the said book.

2. Determination Doctrine, Doctrine, and Doctrine’s design include some of the originalitys, and may cause unsatisfying incidental to the practical nature of letters, but it is difficult to recognize that the aesthetic elements or originality is separate from the original function of letters, and that the independent existence of such aesthetic elements or creativity is difficult to be recognized to an extent that it is separate from the original function of letters, and thus, it is difficult to be recognized as a work or art that is subject to protection under the Copyright Act. However, an individual e-mail file program (data files that can be commercialized and printed on the screen) constitutes a work that is protected under the Copyright Act. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone received the victim’s ctrifying program.

It is insufficient to recognize the act of lending and distributing the above program itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the defendant produced the phrase "F" using the victim's body program illegally reproduced, it may be deemed that there was awareness as to whether the letter program was lawfully reproduced, and whether the purpose or use of the letter program was limited.