A. The lower court found Defendant A not guilty of the violation of the Copyright Act on March 10, 2014 against Defendant A, the violation of the Copyright Act on March 10, 2014 against Defendant B, the violation of the Copyright Act on March 10, 2014 against Defendant B, each conviction on the obstruction of business, and the violation of the Copyright Act on March 10, 2015 against Defendant A, the violation of the Copyright Act on March 10, 2015, the obstruction of business, and the violation of the Copyright Act on March 10, 2015 against Defendant B.

B. The prosecutor appealed only to the part of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part on the obstruction of business against Defendant A, and Defendant A did not appeal, and Defendant B appealed only to the part on conviction.

C. Therefore, among the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the part on Defendant A’s interference with business was separated and finalized, and only the remainder is subject to this Court’s judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The concept of “public announcement” under the Copyright Act includes not only the initial publication but also the subsequent publication. The lower court erred by misapprehending the concept of “public announcement” as above, which affected the remaining judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1’s consent of the original author in misunderstanding the legal principles, which does not constitute a violation of the Copyright Act. (2) The lower court’s sentence on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants of this part of the facts charged are one of the original authors of J “X”.