[2] In a case where Internet users are directly connected to web pages, etc. that infringe the copyright holder’s right of reproduction or public transmission by posting a work without permission from the copyright holder or transmitting such work to Internet users, whether the act of linking alone constitutes aiding and abetting the infringement of copyright (negative)

[2] An act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the implementation of a principal offender. The act of linking is merely an indication or route of location or route of web page, etc. that the Internet user intends to link on the Internet. Thus, even if an Internet user directly connects to a web page, etc. that violates the copyright holder’s right of reproduction or public transmission by posting a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder or transmitting such copyrighted work to the Internet user, it cannot be said that the act of linking itself does not constitute an act of aiding and abetting copyright infringement.

1. The so-called Internet link is merely an indication or route of the web location or route of individual copyrighted materials stored in the web page or website, etc. that the Internet user intends to link on the Internet. However, even if the Internet user directly connects the web page or individual copyrighted materials by exchanging the link, such link does not constitute reproduction and transmission as prescribed by the Copyright Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da77405, Nov. 26, 2009; 2009Da80637, Mar. 11, 2010).

Meanwhile, the act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the implementation of a principal offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4128, Apr. 28, 2006, etc.). Since the act of linking is merely an indication of location or route, such as the web page that the link intends to link on the Internet, it is merely an indication of the location or route of the web page that the Internet user intends to link. Thus, even if the Internet user directly connects to the web page, etc. which infringes the copyright holder’s right of reproduction or public transmission by posting copyrighted works or transmitting such copyrighted works to the Internet user, it cannot be said that the implementation of the act of aiding and abetting the link itself is easy. Thus, the act of linking alone does not constitute aiding and abetting the act of infringing author’s property right.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the defendant is a person who manages and operates the instant website at the time of original adjudication, and some members of the instant website posted digital contents, such as Japanese cartoons, etc. (hereinafter "digital contents of this case") on the bulletin board of the website without the copyright holder's permission to use them from the copyright holder, and posted a link on the foreign Blog to allow Internet users to peruse or download it, but the defendant neglected to delete it.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the act of certain members of the ○○ Site as above does not constitute reproduction and transmission as prescribed by the Copyright Act, thereby infringing the copyright holder’s right of reproduction or public transmission. In addition, even if a foreign channel infringes on the copyright holder’s right of reproduction or public transmission as to the digital contents of this case, and the Internet user directly connects the above link to such foreign channel, the act of such link alone does not constitute aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property right.

Therefore, even if the Defendant provided a space for the above link act that cannot be punished as a violation of the Copyright Act or a crime of aiding and abetting the Defendant’s management and operation of the instant website, or neglected such link without deleting it, the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Copyright Act cannot be deemed established. Furthermore, according to the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant aided and abetting the infringement of the author’s property right by any means, such as operating a foreign camera or posting the digital content on a foreign camera, etc., in addition to the evidence duly adopted by the lower court.

In the same purport, the judgment below which acquitted Defendant of aiding and abetting a violation of the Copyright Act is just, and there is no error in finding facts contrary to logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on aiding and abetting a violation of the Copyright Act

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)