저작권법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal revealed that the victim consistently made statements that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, the booker distributed by the defendant can be seen as a reproduction because it is possible to confirm the fact that the photophones differs from the photophones, and the Defendant distributed the booker of the instant case around April 29, 2013, after the supply of the booker to the Defendant was suspended, and in full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s reproduction and distribution of the booker without permission, thereby infringing on the victim’s copyright.
In addition, even if the defendant distributed books lawfully supplied, since the delegation contract with the victim is terminated, the defendant is no longer entitled to distribute the above books. Thus, the distribution of books after the termination of the delegation contract after the termination of the delegation contract constitutes a violation of the Copyright Act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows.
B. On April 29, 2013, the victim confirmed that there was no inventory of North Korea held by the defendant in the court of the court below in around 2012. On April 29, 2013, the victim confirmed that the North Korea was released from the defendant company to the four children's house as stated in the facts charged. The victim confirmed that the North Korea released from the defendant company was a reproduction of the defendant company around that time.
The statements made by the victim alone are not sufficient to recognize that the defendant released from the workshop to the four children's house on the above day by the victim's statement is a reproduction without permission.
S Head of the S
T also confirmed that the product presented by the victim is a reproduction in the court of original trial, and that the reproduction is the defendant.