Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant appears not to have obtained consent from D, the original creator, regarding the production and production of music records on the basis of the instant “F”. In light of such circumstances, there is considerable room to think that his copyright was infringed from the original creator’s standpoint.

B. However, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted is the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). C.

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records, it is insufficient to recognize that the court below, for the reasons stated in its reasoning, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant produced and sold the records by putting the above celebling the above celebling while recognizing that the defendant was an act of infringing the copyright of D and celebite, the original creator of the "F", and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a time without proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion