저작권법위반방조
We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.
Defendant
A The fine of fine of KRW 8,00,000, and the defendant corporation B shall be punished by fine of KRW 5,000,00.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);
A. In fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a contract with the community, which is a DNA monitoring system company, and is carrying out the DNAing business. Thus, even if the Defendant’s request, the injured company refused to provide the said community, thereby refusing to do so, resulting in infringement of copyright.
Therefore, the defendant has the intention of aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
subsection (1) of this section.
B. Each punishment (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence in June, and 7 million won of fine) for the first instance of sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. (i) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached Form.
The act of aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction or transmission protected by the Copyright Act refers to any direct and indirect act that facilitates the infringement of the principal offender's right of reproduction or transmission.
This includes not only aiding and abetting a principal offender's infringement of the right of reproduction or transmission but also predicting and facilitating the infringement of the future right of reproduction or transmission before commencing the act of infringing the right of reproduction or transmission.
In addition, it is sufficient that there is dolusent intent with regard to the act of infringing the right to reproduce and transmit by one principal offender, and there is no need to specifically recognize the time, place, object, etc. of the act of infringing the right to reproduce and transmit by the principal offender, and also there is no need to finally recognize who is the principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7681, Nov. 28, 2013). Meanwhile, Article 104(1) of the Copyright Act provides that online service provider (hereinafter referred to as “special type online service provider”).