beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.29 2017노571

저작권법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The term “public list” under Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act means the case where a work is first made public or published in the public. The term “L” book of this case (hereinafter “L”) is the same as that of “L” book already issued on March 10, 2013, and it does not constitute an offense since it does not constitute a publication under the Copyright Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to "official title" under the Copyright Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act provides that a person who makes a work public under the real name or pseudonym of a person other than the author shall be subject to criminal punishment.

The purpose of the above provision is to protect the credibility of the society in the name of the author as well as the real personal rights of the author, which are expressed as the author by a person other than the author on his own work against his own will and against his own will by a person other than the author.

Meanwhile, in light of the literal meaning of such publication and the legislative intent of Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act, the publication of a work under the Copyright Act refers to the publication of a work to the public by means of public performance, transmission, exhibition or other means (Article 2 subparag. 25 of the Copyright Act). In light of the literal meaning of such publication and the legislative intent of Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act, there is a timely publication of a work

Even if the establishment of a crime under the above provision is not affected (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do473, Oct. 26, 2017).