A. Under the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, if a building is not a building, it does not constitute “the reproduction” under the Copyright Act even if a three-dimensional model is created in accordance with the design drawing. Therefore, in the case of this case where the Defendant made the victim’s work (hereinafter “the design of this case”) that is not a building existing only in the drawing, such as “G” and “I”, into “H” and “J” (hereinafter “the design of this case”), the reproduction is not included in “the reproduction” under the Copyright Act.

B. Fact-misunderstanding is that the instant design was acquired from the injured party or used with the consent of the injured party.

(c)

The sentence of the court below's unfair sentencing (amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 4(1)4 of the Copyright Act provides for an applied art work as a type of art work, based on the determination of the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, and Article 2 Subparag. 15 of the same Act defines the applied art work as “a work of art, including a design, which can be reproduced in the same shape as that of the goods and can be recognized as having originality separately from the goods used.”

In this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the design of this case is a creative production of a computer program using one's idea or a certain subject in order for the injured party to subscribe to the environmental sculpture prior to the public offering in apartment complex. The design of this case is written in detail in the design of this case, and if there is only the design of this case, it would be possible for anyone to produce a sculpture identical or similar to the sculpture which is the shape of the design of this case. In fact, the defendant and the defendant are recognized to have produced the sculpture of this case in accordance with the design of this case. Accordingly, the design of this case is the same as the product of this case.