1. As to the assertion on the primary facts charged of this case, the summary of the primary facts charged of this case is as follows: Defendant A operated the “F” site, which is the file sharing site; and, as indicated in the evidence collection list, Defendant A had the non-user of the name-based video work, which is copyright, run the video work with the victim, and assisted and abetted the infringement of copyright by allowing a large number of unspecified users to easily reproduce and copy it at any time; Defendant B, the representative director of the company, assisted and abetted the infringement of copyright regarding Defendant B’s business as above.

As to this, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the traffic pedago is the victim of the author’s property right from the genuine right holder; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; and (c) this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

On the other hand, as long as there is no change in indictment in principle, the court has no obligation to determine the guilty of the facts constituting a crime different from the facts charged, and in light of the purpose of the criminal procedure, which is the prompt discovery of substantial truth through proper procedures, the court has a duty to exceptionally determine the guilty of other facts constituting a crime only

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10701 Decided January 27, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12275 Decided September 10, 2015, etc.). Therefore, the same applies.