Therefore, the statute of limitations on the instant facts charged cannot be deemed to have expired since the statute of limitations on the instant facts charged began from July 20, 2012 when the state of infringement of legal interests was terminated, and before the instant public prosecution was instituted. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the instant public prosecution constitutes a case where the statute of limitations expired.

2. The Defendant of the instant facts charged is a person who operates an Internet homepage producer with the trade name, “C,” “C,” in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-si.

On September 12, 2005, the Defendant requested the e company’s Internet homepage operated D from D at the coffee shop in which it is mutually known at Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and then reproduced the e company’s own image (G) which is a work of art in which the victim F is copyright at the above “C office from around that time to July 20, 2012, without obtaining the consent of the victim, and then infringed the victim’s copyright by using it on the background screen of the above E company’s website.

3. The court below held that the crime of violation of the Copyright Act of this case is five years in accordance with Article 97-5 of the former Copyright Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8101 of Dec. 28, 2006), since the crime of violation of the Copyright Act of this case is punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, or both penalties may be imposed concurrently, under Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 249 (1) 4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007). The statute of limitations is five years in accordance with Article 249 (1) 4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act, and even if the defendant is found guilty, the above act