In order to fall under the category of the work already made public, it must be ① a work already made public, ② for the purpose of news reports, criticism, education, research, etc., ③ for the purpose of complying with fair practices within the reasonable scope. The act of the defendant in this case does not fall under any of the above requirements.

The judgment of the court of first instance rendered a judgment not guilty on the ground that the defendant's act of this case constitutes Article 28 of the Copyright Act. The judgment of the court of first instance erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 28 of the Copyright Act, which affected the judgment.

2. Determination:

(a) Article 28 of the Copyright Act provides that a work already made public may be quoted for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc., in compliance with a fair practice within the reasonable scope;

The issue of whether to accept the work in conformity with fair practices within the reasonable scope is determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose of quotation, the nature of the work, the contents and quantity of the quoted work, the method and form that contains the quoted work, the general concept of readers, and whether the demand for original crops is replaced. In such a case, although the use for profit purposes is not necessarily a non-profit use, it is considerably narrow that the use for profit purposes is allowed for a non-profit purpose compared with the use for non-profit purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do10786, Aug. 26, 2014). (b) Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances recognized by the health account and the record are considered as follows.