A. As to each violation of the Copyright Act stated in the attached list of crimes, the victim's lectures and lectures are not merely a mere academic content or a theory, but they are in itself a creative expression form. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. As to the violation of the Copyright Act due to the reproduction of “the core summary of the identification certificate”, the summary of “the core summary of the identification certificate” (hereinafter “the summary of this case”) was drawn up by K, not the victim, the Defendant and the name of the person who is the Defendant, who is not the victim.

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude, and even if the above summary is not the work written by the victim, the defendant's reproduction of the copyrighted work is recognized, so the defendant constitutes a violation of the Copyright Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the facts charged in this part of the charges of violation of each Copyright Act stated in the list of annexed crimes, the court below judged that the victim's work, such as the list of annexed crimes, is deemed to fall under academic contents such as a color methodology, etc., which should be known by examinees, and its academic contents constitute ideas, and thus cannot be protected under the Copyright Act, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the color method used by the victim in his/her lecture constitutes a creative expression form that is not expressed in the existing other works.

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the circumstances admitted by the records of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to support the victim’s lectures and lectures.