Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 is the corporation established for the purpose of online information provision business.

A. Defendant 1

From June 2010 to November 19, 2010, the Defendant posted a summary of 27 photographs of the Seoul Mapo-gu Office of Co., Ltd., Defendant 2, and on the Internet homepage (Internet address omitted) the victim’s work without the consent of the non-indicted.

As such, the Defendant infringed the victim’s copyright.

B. Defendant 2 corporation

Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant at the date and time and place mentioned in the above paragraph (a), posted a photograph as to the Defendant’s business, thereby infringing on the victim’s copyright.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize a violation of the Copyright Act, the actor must have the intent of the infringement, and in order to recognize the intention, it is necessary to recognize the infringement of author’s property right. The actor may be acknowledged if he knows the content of the right or if he knows the existence of the right, even if there is no accurate awareness about the content of the right.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the records of this case: ① the Defendants entered into a contract on consignment with the photographers for management and sale, and managed the database; ② the number of citizens at the time of the 2002 World Cup were operating so-called Maburgian, so-called “○○○○○○○○”’s image as an organization of the World Cup, and used the two different types of pictures for the purpose of this case’s display of 202 red e-mail and then, the Defendants were not able to wear a e-mail or two new e-mail, and the above e-mail’s display of e-mail was not widely known in the world as long as the e-mail culture had shown good results. ③ The above e-mail’s display of e-mail and e-mail’s display of 200 years old e-mail.

C. As seen earlier, insofar as the instant facts charged against Defendant 1 do not prove a crime, the instant facts charged against Defendant 2, the employer of the above Defendant, also did not prove a crime.

3. Conclusion

The facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, each of them is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yu Jae-in