The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts does not create a derivative work of C’s work, but created a new work that is independent of it.

Even if the Defendant’s work constitutes secondary copyrighted works, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of violating the Copyright Act, in accordance with Article 35-3 of the Copyright Act regarding “Fair Use of Works,” given that the Defendant merely used his/her work as an individual, such as club activities, and did not use it for profit.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (80,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the mistake of facts in the summary of the grounds for appeal, but the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged without rejecting the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion.

After the Defendant made a partial revision based on C’s work, and made a work of which substantial similarity is maintained, the Defendant did not indicate the source as if it was the Defendant’s own work, or at least so as to be sufficient to mislead another person as the Defendant’s own work, and presented it to the person who exhibits it in the “E” airspace operated by the Defendant, or posted it on his Internet cameras and Blouses, and heard California lectures from him.

Defendant’s above act may not be deemed to have used C’s work individually or within the limit of personal, family and the equivalent use.

A person who uses works pursuant to Article 35-3 of the Copyright Act.