If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

On May 201, 201, the Defendant, at a D apartment complex located in Asan-si, Asan-si, Asan-si, D apartment complex, where art works are to be installed in an apartment complex, installed a sculpture by receiving KRW 2,4450,00 in return for the design for the construction of five sculptures in the apartment complex, E, a construction company of the apartment complex, which is a constructor of the above apartment complex, who is required to install an art works in the apartment complex, installed a sculpture by attaching the title of “H” by partially changing the bottom part from the sculpture of “G” created by the victim F, which is a sculpture, and attaching the title of “J” to “I” and “I” created by the victim F.

Accordingly, the Defendant, without permission, reproduced the work of applied art of the victim, and installed and displayed himself as the author as if he were his own work, thereby infringing on the author’s property right of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of K witness K;

1. Partial statement of the witness L;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of each police statement to F, L, or K;

1. Photographs of sculptures illegally reproduced;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written appraisal;

1. Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. First of all, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that if a building is not a building under the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, it does not constitute “duplicing” under the Copyright Act even if a three-dimensional model is created in accordance with the design drawings. Thus, in the case where the defendant made the victim’s work (hereinafter “instant drawings”) existing only in the drawings such as “G” and “I” into the three-dimensional sculpture of “H” and “J” (hereinafter “instant sculptures”), it does not constitute “duplicing” under the Copyright Act.