No person shall infringe upon any author's property right or other property rights protected pursuant to the Act by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lease, or preparation of a secondary copyright.

On April 2, 2014, the Defendant produced shopping mall upon request from G and made it possible for an unspecified number of unspecified persons to view it by making use of the phone "F" screen "I" without a license agreement or consent with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the victim's property right.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that there was no romatic work as indicated in the facts charged above, and the body itself does not constitute a work protected under the Copyright Act, and there was no reproduction of the documentary program subject to protection under the Copyright Act.

B. Although the draft of the judgment is recognized that some of the creativity is included in the draft of the written body, and that it may cause an aesthetic impression, it is difficult to recognize that the aesthetic elements or creativity is separated from the original function of the written body to the extent that it becomes an independent subject of separate identification.

Therefore, it is difficult to be recognized as a work or art work that is subject to protection under the Copyright Act, and it is also difficult to recognize it as a work or art work, but it is a work protected under the Copyright Act.

According to the facts charged as stated in the instant indictment and the applicable legal provisions, the prosecutor may digitalize the “F” phone so that he/she can output it on the screen.