No person shall intrude intellectual property rights or other property rights protected pursuant to this Act by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lending, or preparation of derivative works.

Nevertheless, on January 18, 2017, the Defendant infringed on the copyright of the Victim Pho Design Group by accessing the Internet “F” website by Defendant E’s staff members of the said “D kindergarten” by using the counseling office computer, and copying and using the phone file program with the Victim Pho Design Group’s copyright.

2. In the case of a documentary file, including related legal principles, falls under a computer program, not a simple data file, and the production of the documentary file constitutes a creative work because the producer’s creative identity is expressed in the production of the written file (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do732, May 15, 2001; 9Da5052, Jun. 26, 2001). However, our Copyright Act does not explicitly stipulate the content of the work’s copyright or the protection, and the applied art created for the main purpose of the practical function does not contain any elements.

Even if the act of reproduction, transmission, and distribution of a documentary file as a computer program itself has an independent artistic characteristic or value separate from the practical function, it is protected as a work only if it falls under a creative work belonging to the art scope (Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5632 delivered on August 23, 196). Therefore, the act of reproduction, transmission, and distribution of a documentary file as a computer program constitutes copyright infringement of a documentary program, but the act of using a documentary draft, i.e., the result expressed using a written body program, constitutes a copyrighted work.