Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is a person who actually operates C in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and C is a corporation established for the purpose of a motor vehicle-related beauty business.

No author's property right or other property rights protected pursuant to the Copyright Act shall be infringed by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lending, or secondary preparation of works.

On November 6, 2018, the Defendant, at the above C Office of Songpa-gu Seoul Building E, posted the video of “G” title on the F Account operated by the said Company, and infringed the victim’s author’s property right by posting the photograph of “I”, which is the work of the Victim H, on the front image screen of the said Company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the police interrogation report (including photographs) on L of the police interrogation protocol on the suspect interrogation report (related to attachment of dynamic images and public inspection documents) to the witness of the defendant's partial statement at the court, J and K's written statement at the court (including photographs) (related to attachment of the materials submitted by the complainant - the video production service contract, copyright and share transfer contract - the video production service contract, copyright and share transfer contract) inquiry report

1. Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act and Article 136 (1) 1 of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s photographic statement on the summary of the facts constituting the crime (hereinafter “the instant photograph”) is not “works” protected under the Copyright Act, since the photographic recording of the Defendant and the defense counsel took place at the memorial hall, it is not “works” protected under the Copyright Act, and even if it constitutes copyrighted works, the Defendant was a model of photographing at the time, and had contributed significantly to the expression area, such as the creation of ideas and Gu roads, and thus, the Defendant has the right as a co-author, and is