Nevertheless, around August 2015, the Defendant infringed on the victim’s author’s property right by inserting D’s copyrighted work on the website using various phrases, such as “E”, “E 10kg”, and “Newline Dok”, which are one of D’s copyrighted work copyright to D Co., Ltd. on the website.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a documentary file, it constitutes a computer program that is not a simple data file, and the production of a written 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, the Korean Copyright Act does not explicitly stipulate the content of the copyrighted work or the protection of the written body, and the applied art works created for the main purpose of the practical function are not included in the elements.

Even if the act of reproduction, transmission, and distribution of a documentary file as a computer program itself has a separate and independent artistic characteristic or value from the practical function, it is protected as a work only if it falls under a creative production belonging to the scope of art (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 an infringement of the copyright of a documentary program, but the act of using a documentary drawing, i.e., the result expressed by using a written body program, can be deemed as an infringement of the copyright of the written body, but it cannot be deemed as an infringement of the copyright of the written body.

B. The facts charged in the instant indictment are stated.