A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant shall be as follows:

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant took part in the Defendant’s work process, and the degree of involvement exceeds the mere instruction and supervision of the Defendant’s work, and (b) the said work is evaluated as the victim’s sole author work; (c) even though the said work is deemed as a joint work, the Defendant knew the said work as a joint work, and published the “Dol” by modifying the said work, so the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant without intention of infringement of copyright; (d) the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the defendant had no other criminal record, and that the criminal intention is recognized as a crime as shown in the argument on mistake of facts, etc., the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable, in light of the fact that the criminal intent is insignificant, and that the defendant loses his status when imprisonment is sentenced as a university professor.

2. Determination:

A. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is a professor of the law department of △ University;

(가) 2000. 1. 5.경 부산 영도구 대교동 1가 20 소재 영도경찰서 민원실에서, 사실은 위 대학교 행정학과 시간강사로 재직하고 있던 공소외 1(대법원 판결의 공소외인)이 단독으로 저술한 책인 ‘ ○○정책론’을 피고인과 공저로 출판하자는 피고인의 제안을 거절하고 단독 저서로 위 책을 출판하자, 이에 불만을 품고 위 공소외 1로 하여금 형사처벌을 받게 할 목적으로, “피고소인 공소외 1은 1999. 4.경 부산 영도구 ○○동 소재 △△대학교 국제대학 법학부장실에서 피고인과 ○○정책에 관하여 공동으로 저술하기로 합의하여 고소인의 ‘ ◎◎’ 등 자료를 건네받아 피고소인이 정리하고, 고소인과 수회에 걸쳐 토론하고 보완하여 ‘ ○○정책론’을 공동으로 저술하였으므로 ○○정책론의 저작권은 고소인과 피고소인이 공동으로 보유함에도 불구하고, 1999. 11. 15.경 부산 중구 ○○동 (지번 1 생략) 소재 ▲▲출판사에서 ‘ ○○정책론’이라는 제목으로 피고소인의 단독 저서로 출판하여 고소인의 저작권을 침해하였으니 조사하여 처벌해 달라.”는 취지의 허위내용의 고소장을 작성하여 민원실 담당공무원에게 제출하여 위 공소외 1을 무고하고,

(나) 같은 해(2001.) 9. 10.경 서울 마포구 ○○동 (지번 2 생략) 소재 ★★에서 피해자 공소외 1이 저작권을 가지고 있는 위 책의 체제와 일부 내용만을 수정하였을 뿐 위 책의 내용을 전면 표절한 ‘□□’을 피고인과 피해자의 공저로 출판하여 피해자의 저작권을 침해한 것이다.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case based on the Defendant’s partial statement in the second trial records, Nonindicted 1’s statement in the third trial records in the lower court’s third trial records, Nonindicted 2’s statement in the fourth trial records in the lower court’s fourth trial records, Nonindicted 3’s statement in the fourth trial records in the lower court’s sixth trial records, Nonindicted 1’s protocol in the prosecution’s protocol in the lower court’s sixth trial records, each prosecutor’s protocol in the prosecution’s protocol in the Defendant’s interrogation of Nonindicted 1 and 3, the prosecutor’s protocol in the prosecution’s protocol in the Defendant’

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below.

1) Defendant 1) Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 came to know of each other on March 199 with the introduction of Nonindicted 4 professors from △△△ University, and the victim was in charge of the administrative part-time lecturers from 1 semester 1999 to △△ University. The victim was in charge of the administrative part-time lecturers from 1 semester 1999 and she was in charge of the Defendant’s teaching room for his own teaching room.

2) Meanwhile, around March 199, the victim recommended Nonindicted 5, the principal of △△ University, the principal of the international university of △△△ University, to write a teaching material on the subjects of ○○ Policy to be established in the maritime administrative department from 2000 to △△ University, and the victim is encouraging to do so, and shows his thesis, etc. during the first semester of 1999, and the victim prepared a written work on the subjects of ○ Policy and displayed the draft of a quantity of a white paper on September 199 to Nonindicted 5.

3) After early September 199, a two-year period has passed since early 1999, the Defendant requested the victim to present the data while knowing that the victim was in preparation for ○○ Policy. On September 1, 1999 and September 20, 1999, the victim issued the file of the “○○ Policy loan” and the Plaintiff first-hand to the Defendant.

4) On September 199, the Defendant suggested that the Defendant sent the above “○ Policy loan” to the Defendant and the victim’s public interest by stating to the effect that, since the Defendant’s status as instructors falls short of the authority when the victim, who is an instructor, publishes books on his own and public interest basis, and that he may assist himself at the time of subscribing to the full-time professor of the Victim’s △△ University.

5) Accordingly, the victim was considered not to search for the defendant's proposal and did not take a direct demand of the defendant that continued while avoiding direct answer, and delivered a diskette containing a draft file of the work indicating the defendant and the victim as an official author around October 26, 199, and simultaneously printed the file and created a book book with the defendant and the victim as an official seal.

6) However, around November 13, 1999, the victim, who became aware of the Defendant’s editing the part of “○○ Policy 3” in Chapter 3 as one’s sole thesis, through Nonindicted 2, around November 13, 1999, after finding the Defendant, notified the Defendant that he could no longer maintain public peace with the Defendant who committed any act in bad faith as above, and then deducted the Defendant from his compilation book (hereinafter “○○○ Policy 1,” the victim and Nonindicted 3, in the lower court and the first instance court, made a statement that △△△ was found to have occurred at the end of October 199. However, in light of the Defendant’s written statement on the complaint prepared on January 25, 200, the victim did not appear to have made a statement on November 13, 199; in light of the fact that the Defendant made a statement at the first stage of investigation on the victim’s complaint, the Defendant did not have made a statement on September 19, 199 when he made a statement at the Defendant’s first statement.

7) 위 사건 이후 피고인은 피해자와의 공저출판이 어려워 질 것으로 예상하여, 1999. 11. 중순경 피해자로부터 지급받은 1999. 10. 26.자 디스켓 속의 파일들 중 ◇◇부분에 자신의 ‘ ◎◎’부분을 참고로 한 단원 하나를 추가한 후 ▲▲출판사에 피해자와 공저로 ‘ ○○정책론’의 복사본 30부를 복사의뢰하여 이를 발간하기도 하고, 조교인 공소외 3으로 하여금 ‘ ○○정책론’ 가제본 책자의 뒷면에 참고도서 중 자신이 연필로 체크한 자료를 구입하여 오도록 하기도 하였다.

8) 한편, 피해자는 ◇◇ 사건 이후 ‘ ○○정책론’을 자신의 단독 명의로 출판하기로 마음먹고 1999. 11. 15.경 ▲▲출판사에 ‘ ○○정책론’을 피해자 명의로 출판해 줄 것을 요청하였고, ▲▲출판사 공소외 6 사장은 1999. 11. 말경 피해자 단독명의로 ‘ ○○정책론’을 출판하였다.

9) On December 27, 1999, the Defendant, who became aware of the fact that the victim was publishing the “○○ Policy loan” under the sole name of the victim, filed a complaint with the victim and Nonindicted 6 on December 27, 199, to the extent that the Defendant and the victim agreed to publish the “○○ Policy loan” at the public interest and work around June 199, and that the Defendant and the victim were to do so, and the system and main frameworks and spirits of the maritime construction are entirely the Defendant’s idea, but publication in the name of the victim was entirely the Defendant’s idea, and then, on January 5, 200, the Defendant filed a complaint with the victim and Nonindicted 6 on March 30, 200, as a result of the advice of Nonindicted 4 professors and Nonindicted 2 assistant instructors, and revoked the complaint on March 30, 200).

10) From April 200 to April 200, the dispute between the defendant, the victim, the non-indicted 2, and the defendant and the victim had been forgotten in entirety, and there was a compromise between the defendant and the victim in the future. However, there was no special discussion or agreement on the above ○ Policy theory.

11) 그런데 2001. 5.경부터 학교 내에서 피고인이 복사본으로 출판한 ○○정책론과 피해자가 출판한 ‘ ○○정책론’에 대한 표절의혹이 일게 되었고, 그와 관련하여 △△대학교의 징계절차에 회부된 피고인은, 자신이 ○○정책론에 대한 저작권이 있음을 증명하기 위한 방법 등으로 2001. 9. 10.경 ★★를 통하여 위 ‘ ○○정책론’과 기본적 내용이 동일한 ‘ □□’이라는 책을 피해자와 공저로 발간하였으나, ‘ ○○정책론’ 발간 이후에 ‘ □□’ 발간에 대하여 피해자와 사이에 어떠한 합의나 공동작업은 이루어 진 바 없었다.

12) The victim, on December 31, 2001, who became aware of the fact that the defendant had published the above "Seongsan" of the same content as his own book with himself, applied for copyright dispute mediation against the defendant on December 31, 200, but on February 15, 2002, the defendant was absent, thus failing to mediate.

13) On February 25, 2002, the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant for a crime such as violation of the Copyright Act.

(B) Whether the victim's sole work is a sole work

First, the Defendant asserts that “○○ Policy theory” and “△△△” jointly created between himself and the victim, and thus, I will first examine this.

In order to establish a joint work, not only the joint authors created jointly but also the requirement that each person’s contributory portion should not be separately used. Even if several persons participate in the preparation of a work, only one person is in charge of works related to creative elements, or if another person provides ideas and materials, only the person in charge of creative work shall be the author, and the other person shall be the author, and the work created shall not be the author.

그런데, 위 인정사실 및 이 사건 변론에 나타난 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인은 피해자가 1999. 9. 1., 1999. 9. 20., 1999. 10. 26. 각 지급한 원고 초고 및 파일들을 이용하여 간단한 수정 또는 교정작업 만을 하였을 주6) 뿐, 특별히 ‘ ○○정책론’ 저술과 관련하여 자신의 창작적인 내용을 먼저 피해자에게 제시하거나 특별한 내용을 담은 파일 등을 피해자에게 교부한 사실은 없는 주7) 점, ② 공소외 5도 1999. 3.경 피해자에게 ○○정책에 대한 저서의 집필을 권유하였고, 1999. 1학기 방학이 끝난 후 피해자가 수백 페이지에 달하는 연구결과물을 가져와서 이를 자신에게 보여주었다고 진술하고 있어 공소외 5 학장의 권유에 따라 1999. 1학기 여름방학까지 ‘ ○○정책론’에 대한 저술의 초안을 작성하였다는 피해자의 진술에 부합하고 있는 점, ③ 피고인이 ‘ ○○정책론’의 전체적인 구상을 하고 내용을 주도적으로 집필하였고, ○○정책론의 문외한이었던 피해자를 가르치면서 책을 집필하였다면 교수인 피고인과 시간 강사인 피해자의 신분관계 등에 비추어 볼 때 위 저작물은 오히려 피고인의 저작물이라고 보아야 할 것인데도, 피고인은 자신의 아이디어에 대한 편집작업만을 담당하였다는 피해자에게 공동저작권을 인정하여 주었고, 2000. 1. 피해자를 고소한 이후에도 일방적으로 고소를 취소하여 주었으며, 2000. 4.경 화해를 위하여 만난 자리에서도 ‘ ○○정책론’을 피해자 단독 명의로 발간한데 대한 관한 특별한 논의나 합의를 하지 아니하였고, 나아가 ‘ ○○정책론’ 발간 이후에는 피해자가 수정작업 등에 관여한 바도 없음에도 ‘ □□’을 피해자와 공동저자로 출판하였는바, 이러한 사정들은 피해자가 ‘ ○○정책론’을 주도적으로 저술하였음을 반증하는 것이라고 볼 수 있는 점, ④ 피고인은 피해자에게 자료를 제공하였다고 주장하지만, 주장하는 자료가 ‘ ○○정책론’의 어느 부분에 인용되었는지 설명하고 있지 못할 뿐만 아니라, 제공하였다고 주장하는 자료 즉 도서들도 전체 인용도서 등에 비하여 매우 미미한 주8) 부분 이고, 나아가 피고인은 피고인과 피해자 사이의 ◇◇ 이후에야 ‘ ○○정책론’ 가제본에 기재된 참고도서들을 구입하였으므로, 피고인이 실제 ‘ ○○정책론’에 인용된 참고 도서의 내용에 대하여는 잘 모르고 있었다고 봄이 상당한 점, ⑤ 피고인은 1990년대 초반부터 자신의 학문적 경험을 바탕으로 ‘ ○○정책론’의 집필을 준비하고 있었다고 주장하지만, 공소외 3은 자신이 근무하기 시작한 1999. 8. 3. 이후에도 1999. 9.까지는 ‘ ○○정책론’의 파일들에 대한 수정작업을 하지 않았고, 1999. 9. 이후에도 일부 수정작업을 한 바는 있지만 이를 별도로 관리하였다고 진술하고 있고, 피고인이 주장하는 수정부분은 피해자가 발간한 ‘ ○○정책론’ 저서에는 반영된 것이 거의 없는바, 위 사실들에서 알 수 있듯이 피고인은 피해자로부터 디스켓 등을 지급받은 1999. 9. 이후에야 ‘ ○○정책론’과 관련된 작업을 하였고, 그 내용도 공저와는 별 관계없는 자신이 보관할 파일을 수정작업을 한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 피해자는 공소외 4 교수에게 피고인이 ○○정책론의 수정, 보완 작업을 하기로 하였으나, 실제 기여가 거의 없다는 취지로 말한 바 있는데, 당시 피고인과 피해자의 △△대학교에서의 지위와 피해자가 △△대학교의 전임교수 자리를 얻기 위하여 노력하고 있었던 상황이었던 점, 공소외 4 교수와 피고인은 고등학교 선후배 관계로서 공소외 4 교수가 피해자를 피고인에게 소개해 주었던 점 등을 고려하여 볼 때, 실제 피고인의 주장과 같이 피고인이 ‘ ○○정책론’의 전체적인 초안을 잡고, 저술의 전반적인 수정, 보완 작업을 하였다면 피고인이 공소외 4 교수에게 위와 같은 내용의 이야기를 하기는 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ 피고인은 ◇◇ 부분을 자신의 독자적인 논문으로 발표하기 위하여 수정작업을 하던 도중에 피해자에게 적발되기까지 하였던 점, ⑧ 피고인은 2001. 5. 10.경 △△대학교에서 표절시비가 일어나자, △△대학교 자유게시판에 ‘ ○○정책론’ 책은 피해자가 먼저 발간하고, 뒤이어 이를 수정·보완하여 공저로 정식출판하기로 약정하였다고 기재하기도 하였던바, 피고인도 대외적으로 발표하는 게시판에 위와 같은 내용을 적시할 정도로 당시에 ‘ ○○정책론’이 피해자의 단독저서였던 인정하였던 점, ⑨ 피고인은 피해자와 ‘ ○○정책론’을 공저로 표시하여 출간하기로 합의한 시점에 대하여, 피해자에 대한 고소장에서는 1999. 5.경으로, 고소 직전 피해자에게 보낸 내용증명에서는 1999. 6.경으로 각 기재하였고, 2000. 1. 3. 영도경찰서에서 고소보충 진술을 할 당시에는 1999. 4.경 합의가 있었다고 진술하였다가 이 사건에 이르러서는 1999. 3.경부터 합의가 있었다고 주장하고 있어 시간이 지날수록 공저시점이 앞당겨 지고 있어 일관성이 없는 점, ⑩ 피고인은 당심에 이르기까지 계속하여 자신이 1990년대 초반부터 ○○정책에 대하여 관심을 가져왔고 미국유학시절에도 이를 전공하였으며, ○○정책에 관련된 논문도 다수 저술하였으며, 특히 ○○정책에 대해서는 1991년도부터 학부 및 대학원에서 강의를 하기까지 하였다고 주장하지만, 실제 피고인이 2000년도 이전까지 ○○정책에 대한 논문을 발표한 바는 없고(피고인이 제출한 자료들에 의하더라도 2000년 이전까지 발표한 피고인의 논문은 모두 형법 또는 해양과 관련된 형법학에 관한 것일 뿐 ○○정책에 관한 것은 아니다), 피고인이 미국유학시절에 전공한 것도 ○○정책학이 아닌 ‘ ◆◆’라는 제목하의 해양환경 침해에 대한 규제를 내용으로 하는 형법학이고, 더욱이 피고인은 2000년 이전에는 학부 및 대학원 과정에서 ○○정책에 대한 강의를 한 바가 없는 등 피고인이 자신의 ○○정책 관련 자격에 대하여 법정에서까지 계속하여 허위의 진술을 하고 있는 점, ⑪ 피고인은 당심에 이르기까지 자신이 ‘ ○○정책론’ 저술에 참여한 부분과 내용에 대하여 정확하게 지적하지조차 못하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, ‘ ○○정책론’은 피해자가 단독으로 저술하였거나, 가사 피고인이 일부 관여한 부분이 있다고 하더라도 그 부분은 뒤에서 보는 바와 같은 공저 출간의 합의가 이루어진 이후에 피해자의 저술작업에 자구 수정 등 보조적인 작업을 한 것이거나, 일부 소재를 제공한 것으로 위와 같은 행위만으로는 피해자와 피고인이 ‘ ○○정책론’을 공동저작하였다고는 할 수 없으므로, ‘ ○○정책론’은 피해자의 단독 저작물이라고 할 것이다.

(C) As to the mutual agreement between the defendant and the victim

On the other hand, the defendant argued that there was an agreement between the victim and the victim to leave the “○○ Policy loan” as a public seal, and this is examined.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the victim was proposed to leave the "○ Policy loan" to the defendant and the victim's public interest and was asked to answer the defendant's continued demand. Around October 26, 1999, the defendant and the victim printed the diskettes containing the file that the defendant and the victim's public interest and the file files, and it can be seen that there was an agreement between the defendant and the victim's public interest because the victim received the proposal between the defendant's public interest and the defendant's public interest and that there was an agreement between the defendant's public interest. However, even if there was an agreement between the defendant and the victim on the above public interest, the victim's public interest and the defendant's public interest and the defendant's public interest were not cancelled due to the withdrawal of the defendant's public interest, the victim's public interest and the defendant's public interest and the victim's public interest and the defendant's public interest were not expressed in accordance with the agreement between the defendant and the victim's public interest.

(D) The rejection of evidence as shown in the Defendant’s assertion

1) Matters related to diskettes submitted by the Defendant

Unlike the victim’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that he had been engaged in the correction of “○○ Policy loan” in exchanging files with the victim from March 1999, and submitted evidentiary materials to prove that the last date of correction was from April to August. However, in the case of diskettes paid to the Defendant by the victim, the files were already included prior to the date of the last correction, and the last date of the correction was highly likely to be forged, and the actual date of the files paid by the victim was in fact stored after carrying the files paid by the victim. For the same reason, the victim included files on October 10, 199, among diskettes paid to the Defendant around September 20, 199, and Nonindicted 3, who worked as the Defendant’s assistant, had been given a statement from the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office during the period from August 3 to November 30, 1999 to September 30 of the same year, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been given a statement from the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office during the period from September 199.

2) Nonindicted 7 observed the Defendant’s book on the ○○ Policy. In particular, Nonindicted 7 made a statement that he was in possession of himself and provided various materials that have not been disclosed during the period of time to revise and review the draft part of the Marine Safety Part. However, the materials that Nonindicted 7 provided are not only the internal materials of the National Police Agency prescribed in the public disclosure but also those available at any other place (National Assembly Library, Internet, etc.). Nonindicted 7 made a statement from the Defendant at the end of 1998 against the fact that the Defendant had already been working as the victim and the public peace (this is inconsistent with both the Defendant and the victim’s statement and the correction work around April 5, 199; Nonindicted 7 made a correction work through Nonindicted 3, the assistant assistant, etc. at the time of the trial below’s statement that Nonindicted 3 had no consistency in the contents of the correction work; and Nonindicted 7 made a statement at the time of the trial below’s statement that he had no consistency in the contents of the correction policy, etc.

3) Non-Indicted 8 stated that Non-Indicted 8 and Non-Indicted 9, together with Non-Indicted 9, made lectures on the Defendant’s ○○ Policy during the second semester of 1999 at △ University graduate schools, and participated in the revision and supplementation of the concept of professional language in the fishery field upon the request for a review of the contents of the fishery sector. However, the Defendant did not have made a lecture on the ○○ Policy at a graduate school in the second semester of 1999, and Non-Indicted 8 stated that Non-Indicted 8 had made a correction and supplementation of the concept of professional language in the fishery field. However, although Non-Indicted 8 stated that Non-Indicted 9 did not explicitly indicate the grounds for the correction, there is a strong doubt as to whether the actual correction was carried out in the fishery sector, and that if the price of rare species in the fishery sector was erroneous, the “○○ Policy theory” did not write on the prices of rare species, and thus,

4) As a professor, Nonindicted 10, 11, and 12, etc. discussed the Defendant’s “○○ Policylon” from the Defendant. However, the said people cannot be an objective witness because they were the Defendant and the Defendant and the victim. In addition, the content of the “○○ Policylon” was not directly interested in the Defendant and the victim to the extent that they were unaware of the content of the “○○ Policylon,” and it was merely a mere fact that the content was written through the Defendant, and thus, the statement is not credibility.

(E) Determination as to the crime of false accusation

1) First of all, as seen earlier, the “○○ Policy loan” cannot be deemed as a sole work of the victim, and there was an agreement between the Defendant and the victim on the time of a disaster, such as the Defendant and the victim, but the said agreement was rescinded through ○○○ Policy loan. Nevertheless, the Defendant filed a complaint against the victim by publishing the “○ Policy loan” in the victim’s sole book, thereby infringing on his copyright. According to the written complaint and the written statement of supplementary statement, according to the written complaint and the written statement of supplementary statement, the contents of the complaint are not based on the agreement between the Defendant and the victim, but rather on the form, structure, and content of the “○○ Policy loan”, and thus, the Defendant’s criminal facts are sufficiently recognized.

2) The criminal intent of the defendant

Although the defendant's criminal facts themselves are recognized, he was thought to have contributed to the degree of his contribution to the truth with the victim, and the defendant asserts to the effect that he did not have any intention to commit a false accusation because there was an agreement between the victim and the victim on the withdrawal.

In the crime of false accusation, a report of false facts refers to a conclusive or dolusent recognition and report that the reported fact goes against the objective fact, and thus, even if it is inconsistent with the objective fact, if the reporting person is confirmed to be true and reported, the crime of false accusation shall not be established. However, even if it is based on objective facts known to the reporting person, it refers to the case where the reporting person does not know that the reported fact is false, or that it is likely to be false, even if it is based on objective facts known to him/her, it shall not include the case where he/she considers that his/her assertion is correct, without disregarding the fact known to him/her.

As seen earlier, the Defendant did not actually contribute to the “○○ Policy loan.” The Defendant merely agreed to register the Defendant’s personal information with the official seal under the understanding of the victim who did not transfer the Defendant’s personal information. However, even though he did not accurately point out the part participating in the “○○ Policy loan” and the contents thereof up to the trial. ② At the same time, there was an agreement between the Defendant and the victim on the withdrawal of the “○○ Policy loan” with the official seal, but until that time, there was no agreement between the Defendant and the victim on the contents of the “○○ Policy loan” but there was no possibility that the victim would not have been aware of the victim’s personal information, such as the Defendant’s selection of publishing company, publishing time, publishing expenses, and distribution of profits. After that, the Defendant made it clear that ○○ Policy was in violation of the Copyright Act to the effect that there was no possibility that the Defendant would have known the victim’s personal information on the victim’s personal information, etc., on the ground that there was no further agreement between the Defendant and the victim’s personal information.

(f) Judgment on the violation of the Copyright Act

1) As seen earlier, the Defendant published “○○ Policy loan” with the victim, and even though there was no agreement with the victim to have the victim public peace, the Defendant published “○○ Policy loan” with the main issues identical to the above “○○ Policy loan” as the public interest of the Defendant and the victim. As such, the Defendant’s above act constitutes a reproduction of copyrighted works as prescribed in Article 97-5 of the Copyright Act (the identity is recognized as a whole even if a certain change has been partly altered) and thus, the Defendant’s crime of violating the Copyright Act against the Defendant is sufficiently recognized.

2) Agreement on the withdrawal between △△.

In addition, the defendant argued that he agreed to publish the new book, i.e., the new book by revising the ○ policy theory on April 2000. However, around April 200, the defendant, the victim, the non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 4 divided general talks about the new book of public peace, etc., but thereafter, there was no joint work between the defendant and the victim, the non-indicted 4 and the non-indicted 2 present at the time that they did not agree on the definite revision revision revision revision, and the non-indicted 2 stated that there was no proper solution to the defendant's publication without the victim's consent. In light of the fact that the defendant stated that there was no proper solution to the ○○ policy theory, it is reasonable to deem that there was no mutual agreement between the defendant and the non-indicted 2.

3) The criminal intent of the violation of the Copyright Act

In addition, the Defendant jointly drawn up the “○ Policy Do○” with the victim, and there was an agreement between the public on the “○○ Policy Do○,” and therefore, based on this, argued that the Defendant, who published the “○○”, did not have any intent to commit a crime in violation of the Copyright Act. However, as seen in the judgment on the criminal intent of accusation, at least, the Defendant did not contribute to the degree that he/she would be the official seal of the “○ Policy Do○” or was aware of the fact that he/she could no longer maintain his/her status as the official seal because the agreement between himself/herself and the victim was rescinded. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(G) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In this case, although the defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial is held, the defendant is the first offender, and the defendant is dissatisfied with the circumstances. However, with regard to the crime of false accusation, the defendant's voluntary withdrawal of criminal complaint for more than two months after the complaint was filed by the defendant, the defendant did not face the risk of criminal punishment. The part of the defendant's publication of the defendant's infringement of the victim's copyright was published in a state that he maintained public peace with the victim. Accordingly, the defendant did not obtain monetary benefits, the defendant was subject to disciplinary action from the university for seven years in this case, and had no substantial pain in the course of investigation and trial, and there was no substantial cooperation between the defendant and the victim. However, since the agreement between the defendant and the victim to register the defendant as the deceased, the defendant's free will and the violation of copyright is not significant, and even if the defendant's decision on the suspension of execution is somewhat unreasonable, it seems that the defendant's punishment of the defendant's occupation and behavior will be sufficiently affected by the defendant's age standard of punishment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 97-5 of the Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 8101 of Dec. 28, 2006)

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Judges Don-man (Presiding Judge) Don-man Correction

(1) On February 1, 1975, the graduate of the department of law from Seongbuk-si University, on February 1, 1977, the acquisition of the master’s degree from △ University on February 28, 1982, the acquisition of the doctor’s degree from △△ University on April 1, 1981, the full-time lecturer from △△ University on April 1, 1981, the full-time lecturer from 1984, the assistant professor from 1st October 1 to 1989, the associate professor from 1st April 1, 1989, and the professor

(2) On February 1980, the graduation from the administrative department of △△ University on August 1982, 1982, the acquisition of a master’s or doctor’s degree in the administrative department of △△△ University on August 1, 1992, from March 1, 1983 to February 1, 199, the part-time lecturer in the administrative department of △△ University from March 1983 to February 1, 199, the part-time lecturer in the administrative department of △△ University from March 1999, the part-time lecturer in the administrative department of △△ University from March 1, 1999 to February 1, 200, the research institute in the international community of △△△△ University, and the full-time researcher in the maritime affairs and fisheries from June 1, 203 to June 1, 200.

Note 3) The phrase “○○ Policy loan” is a joint work that the Defendant and the victim agreed to publish at the public base from May 199 to May 1, 199, and that the Defendant directed the Defendant from the publication to the publication, and that the Defendant infringed on the Defendant’s copyright by publishing the work in his own name, even though the work system and the ideology and major frame of the ocean state construction and the spirit of the maritime foundation construction are entirely the Defendant’s idea.

4) Although the Defendant alleged that he revoked a complaint by agreement with the victim, according to the statement made by Nonindicted 2 and 4, it would be said that there was no agreement between the Defendant and the victim on copyright disputes at the time of the revocation of the complaint.

Note 5) Compensation for damages and consolation money for infringement of copyright KRW 321 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 30,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 30,00

6) The Defendant, alone, made it difficult for the Defendant, alone, to perform the Dwork difficult, mainly changed to Nonindicted 3’s classical pen and then changed to Nonindicted 3’s classical pen. The Defendant submitted as evidence of the aforementioned revision work, a copy of the copy (Evidence 5 through 8 of the Defendant’s submission of the evidence) in which the victim and the Defendant were sculpted to the alteration of words, but the Defendant’s pentains of the above contents are merely limited to the degree of the alteration of words, and the content of the correction is not reflected in the “○○ Policy Book” published by the victim.

7) The Defendant asserts that his work and marine entry into the Republic of Korea was partly cited in the reproduction of the “○○ Policylon”. However, as seen earlier, the main part that the Defendant’s work was cited as the Defendant’s work by editing the written author of the victim and independently requesting publication is merely an additional part after the Defendant’s agreement with the victim was reversed, and the part that the Defendant asserted for overlapping contents is not based on the Defendant’s professional creativity, and thus, the said materials cannot be deemed as evidence proving the public peace of the Defendant and the victim.

8) Among the books argued by the Defendant in the investigation agency, the books cited in the “○○ Policy loan” refers to “the 21st century,” “the △△△ University’s history,” “the 21st century’s history,” “marine Cultural Research (Publications)”, “the world of the 21st century,” “the 21st century’s world history,” “the 21st century’s history and culture,” “the 21st century and Korea’s marine development,” “the 21st century and Korea’s marine development,” “Freedom Sa in 21st,” and “the 21st century” do not include any materials other than “the 21st century,” and there is no indication that the Defendant has been engaged in any creative work with the said materials other than the victim.