Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below held that ① the victim registered the ductal of this case as a ductal work and sold the ducter, etc. containing the ductal work, etc. to another ductal restaurant, etc. for a fee. However, barring any special circumstance, it seems that the free use of the ductal forest of this case would not be permitted, barring any special circumstance. ② The defendant and the victim did not have any special relationship with each other, and there was an agreement between the defendant and the victim that the ductal forest of this case should be granted the right to supply the ductal forest of this case to the victim, or that part of the ductal forest should be paid as operating income. Thus, there was a special circumstance that the victim allowed the free use of the ductal forest of this case to the defendant.

It is difficult to find reasonable grounds to allow the victim to produce and use the cans and copies of the sample picture with a high quality compared to the original, in light of the following: (a) the victim, who allowed the free use of the forest of this case, around March 9, 2015, at the time of the restaurant business; and (b) around March 9, 2015, demanded a large number of liquids containing the forest of this case to use them for a reasonable cost. In light of the investigation process and the attitude seen in the court below, it is difficult to find reasonable grounds to allow the victim to use the cans and reproductions of the sample picture with a high quality compared to the original, and (c) the victim sold it to a third party, which is its own work.