A. The evidence adopted by the first instance court as the basis of conviction infringed on the victim’s intellectual property rights.

Although there was no part mentioned, the defendant infringed on the author's property right of the bar code program.

The judgment of the first instance court is inconsistent with the reasoning, and the defendant, the general public, does not infringe the copyright of the victim's bar code program in collusion with D.

(b) the sentence sentenced by the first instance court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. In the crime of infringing on property rights of author under Article 136(1) of the Copyright Act, it is sufficient that there is a perception of the fact of infringing on property rights of author, and such recognition is not only conclusive but also conclusive, so-called willful negligence is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do6403, Dec. 23, 2005; 2006Do4334, Oct. 9, 2008). The willful negligence intention, unlike gross negligence, has the awareness of the possibility of causing the crime, and the intention of deliberation to allow the risk of criminal facts.

Considering how the general public can assess the possibility of criminal facts, based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act and the situation of an act that was disclosed outside without depending on the statement of the actor whether an actor was aware of the possibility of criminal facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017, etc.). In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant, as a director of the company C, requested that the director of the company C develop a web page corresponding to “saling” in the short term as a person in charge of developing the web page of this case, and concluded between C and D.