Nevertheless, the Defendant, from May 2013 to September 20 of the same year, written the 7th religious part of the “G” book that was requested to write from F pages at Ecscopic Ecopic Meeting located in Ecopic City D, and infringed on the victim’s author’s property right by plagiarism of the content of “J” and “A” book that was written by the victim H, as it is.

Judgment

1. The Defendant asserts that: (a) the victim’s “I” described objective facts based on historical facts; (b) it does not constitute a creative creation protected under the Copyright Act because it falls under the idea or theory itself; and (c) the Defendant stated that the victim would use the victim’s copyrighted work after receiving a written request from F pages for writing on the religious portion of “G”; and (d) considering that the victim’s consent was obtained from F pages, the Defendant did not intend to violate the Copyright Act.

2. Determination

A. Works protected under the Copyright Act as “I” must be creative expressions of ideas or emotions obtained by people’s psychological efforts regarding learning and art. Therefore, the copyright protection is a creative expression form that is externally and specifically expressed by ideas, emotions, letters, sound, color, etc. The contents of the expression, namely, ideas, theories, etc., that are the contents of the expression, are creative and new.

Even if the author's moral rights, the author's moral rights, which are defined in the Copyright Act, can not be a work in principle except for the cases of novels.