Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 per day into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

(a) A prosecutor;

1) Legal principles

The concept of ‘disclosure' under the Copyright Act includes not only the first publication but also the subsequent publication, so the court below erred in understanding the concept of ‘disclosure' as above, which affected the remaining judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 10 million) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 1 was in excess of the standard points for teachers’ re-contracts, and Defendant 1 does not constitute the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means.

2) Legal principles

Although ○○ University’s faculty evaluation was hindered, this is due to insufficient examination by the ○ University, and thus, Defendant 1 does not constitute crime of interference with business by deceptive means.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

피고인 1은 ○○대학교 △△학부 교수, 피고인 2는 □□대학교 △△◇◇◇◇과 교수, 피고인 3은 ☆☆대학교 ▽▽▽▽과 교수, 공소외 1은 ◎◎대학교 △△▽▽▽▽과 교수, 공소외 2는 1980년 7월경부터 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 및 ▷▷▷▷사의 영업직원으로 근무하다가 2014년 5월경 이직한 자, 공소외 3, 공소외 4는 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 및 ▷▷▷▷사의 영업직원이다.

공소외 1은 2010년 2월경 공소외 2로부터 공소외 1의 저작물로서 ◁◁◁◁◁◁에서 곧 발행할 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적에 저작자가 아닌 교수들을 공저자로 추가하자는 요청을 받고 이를 승낙하고, 2014년 5월경 공소외 3으로부터 위 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적에 저작자가 아닌 교수들을 공저자로 추가하자는 요청을 다시 받아 이를 재승낙하였다.

around 2010, Defendant 3 received a request from Nonindicted 2 to add himself as an author, not the author, in the above book, to the author, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received a request from Nonindicted 4 to add himself as an author, not the author, in the above book, around 2010.

공소외 2, 공소외 3, 공소외 4는 2012. 3. 2. ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 및 ▷▷▷▷사 사무실에서 사실은 피고인들이 “(서적명 1 생략)”의 저작자가 아님에도 서적 표지에 실제 저작자인 공소외 1 외 피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3 등을 공저자로 추가한 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적을 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 명의로 초판 1쇄 발행하고, 2013. 3. 10. 위 사무실에서 위 2012. 3. 2. 초판 1쇄 발행된 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적을 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 명의로 초판 2쇄 발행하고, 공소외 3, 공소외 4는 2014. 6. 30. 위 사무실에서 사실은 피고인 1, 피고인 3이 “(서적명 1 생략)”의 저작자가 아님에도 위와 같이 발행된 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적 표지에 제목은 “(서적명 1 생략)”로 그대로 둔 채 공저자를 실제 저적자인 공소외 1 외 피고인 1, 피고인 3 등으로 일부 변경한 소위 ‘표지갈이’ 서적을 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 명의로 초판 발행하였다.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order, and made the work public on March 2, 2012 and March 10, 2013, by indicating the real name of a person other than the author. Defendant 1, Defendant 3, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and Nonindicted 4 in order, made the work public by indicating the real name of a person other than the author as the author on June 30, 2014.

2) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that since the current Copyright Act adopts the principle of public indication as to the work under this name or pseudonym (see Article 40 of the Copyright Act), the work under occupational name (see Article 41 of the Copyright Act), and the cinematographic work (see Article 42 of the Copyright Act) may extend the protection period of the above works without limit to the initial publication. ② Unlike the former Copyright Act’s punishment for “a person who has published a work under the name or pseudonym of a person other than the author,” the current Copyright Act imposes punishment for “a person who has published a work under the name or pseudonym of a person other than the author” (see Article 40 of the Copyright Act), such punishment is intended to punish “making a work under the name or pseudonym of the author,” and the concept of “making a work under the Copyright Act” and the concept of “making a work under the same Act is distinguishable from the concept of “making a work under the same Act” and the concept of “making a work under the name of publication” and the concept of “making a work under the name of publication” should also be interpreted as “an extension or extension of the term of publication” under the Copyright Act.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) The concept of publication under the current Copyright Act

현행 저작권법은 ‘공표’의 개념을「저작물을 공연, 공중송신 또는 전시 그 밖의 방법으로 공중에게 공개하는 경우와 저작물을 발행하는 경우」로 정의하고 있고( 공표 = 공개 + 발행 ), ‘발행’은 「저작물 또는 음반을 공중의 수요를 충족시키기 위하여 복제·배포하는 것」으로 정의하여( 저작권법 제2조 제24호 , 제25호 참조), ‘공표’가 ‘발행’을 포함하는 개념임을 분명히 하고 있을 뿐이고( 공표 ⊃ 발행 ), ‘발행’이 ‘공표’에 포함되는 경우에는 이를 최초의 발행에 한정한다는 취지의 규정을 두고 있지 아니하다.

B) Relationship with the former Copyright Act

(1) The court below held that in light of the fact that the former Copyright Act clearly separates the concept of “publication” and “disclosure” and the fact that the former Copyright Act, unlike the punishment for the act of publication, is 4 weeks that the current Act punishs the act of publication, the current Copyright Act should be deemed to have been amended under the intent to punish the act of publication, not the act of publication.

(2) However, in light of the following circumstances, the above determination by the court below seems to have derived from erroneous understanding of the intent to amend the current Copyright Act.

(A) At the time of the enactment of the former Copyright Act, the act of reproducing, selling, or distributing the concept of “publication” due to the absence of various kinds of works as at the time of the enactment of the former Copyright Act was defined as “the act of publishing the work,” and subject to the name and title of a person, other than the author, under Article 70, “an act of publishing the work,” was punished.

(B) On December 31, 1986, the Copyright Act was wholly amended by Act No. 3916, Dec. 31, 1986. The amended Act defines the concept of “disclosure” as “where a work is disclosed to the general public by means of public performance, broadcasting, display, or other means, and where a work is published” ( = publication + publication + publication), and Article 99 provides that “an author who has made a work public” under the title “crimes of unlawful publication, etc.” shall be punished by “a person who has made a work public” under the name or pseudonym of a non-author as the author.

(C) Under Article 137(1)1 of the current Copyright Act, while maintaining the concept of “disclosure”, the current Copyright Act permits a person who has made a work public under the title of “Punishment” to punish “a person who has made a work public” under the real name or pseudonym of a person other than the author as the author.

(3) In light of the above developments of the amendment, the amended Copyright Act does not intend to punish “publication” rather than “publication,” but rather, punish the act of “illegal publication” as the type of works diversified, thereby making it impossible to protect the public’s trust in the name of the author. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the amended Copyright Act intended to punish all the acts of “making public” including the act of “illegal publication,” including the act of “making public.”

A person shall be appointed.

C) Relationship with the German Copyright Act

(1) As pointed out by the lower court, ① the German Copyright Act separates the concept of “public announcement” and “publication”, and ② the fact that the German Copyright Act adopts the principle of initializing the public announcement of anonymous or pseudonymous works is recognized.

(2) However, it is not appropriate to interpret the concept of "disclosure" and "publication" under the German Copyright Act as the requirement for consent of the person with authority, and with respect to the concept of "publication" as well as with the characteristic that emphasizes the possibility of public access", and with respect to the concept of "publication", it is not appropriate to interpret the concept of "publication" and "publication" under the Korean Copyright Act based on the strong color compared with the legal system of the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to interpret the concept of "publication" and "publication" under the German Copyright Act, because there is no provision punishing the act of improper publication or publication other than the act of adding the indication of the author in the art work without permission, as the German Copyright Act does not have a provision punishing the act of publication without permission, it is not very helpful to interpret Article 137 (1) 1 of the German Copyright Act (Article 137 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act as mentioned thereafter).

D) Relationship with the Japanese Copyright Act

(1) As pointed out by the lower court, the fact that the Japanese Copyright Act separates the concept of “public announcement” and “public publication” is recognized as ① (9) a week in which the Japanese Copyright Act separates the concept of “public announcement” and “public publication”, ② a situation in which the Japanese Copyright Act adopts the principle of reckoning the period of public announcement with respect to “unwritten or vindicate

(2) However, unlike the punishment of “a person who has published a work” by inserting the name name of a person other than the author” under the former Japanese Copyright Act, it is reasonable to interpret the concept of “public disclosure” under Article 137(1)1 of the Korean Copyright Act, based on the interpretation theory of the Japanese Copyright Act, to interpret the concept of “public disclosure” under Article 137(1)1 of the Korean Copyright Act, as pointed out by the court below, by punishing “a person who has distributed a reproduction of a work indicating a person other than the author” as “a person who has distributed the reproduction of the work,” and (2) as mentioned later, to interpret the term “public disclosure” under Article 137(1)1 of the Korean Copyright Act as including both the initial publication and the subsequent publication.

(e)in counting principles and the protection period of copyright when publication is made;

(1) The lower court did not limit the concept of “public disclosure” under Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act to the initial publication, but may have the right to extend the protection period of “a anonymous or pseudonymous work,” “occupational work,” or “cinematographic work,” without limitation.

(2) However, the purport of the principle of reckoning up at the time of publication adopted by Articles 40, 41, and 42 of the Copyright Act is to ensure that the period of protection should be calculated from that time, and that the period of protection should be extended every time when the publication is made, rather than 12).

(3) Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the term of “public disclosure” under Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act is not limited to the initial publication, but is in possession of an extension of the term of protection of a work in a pseudonym or pseudonym, an “occupational work,” or a “cinematographic work,” without limitation, is unreasonable.

4) Therefore, the prosecutor’s above misapprehension of legal principles is with merit.

B. Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of fact

1) Defendant 1 asserts that “The crime of interference with business shall not be established because the standard points for school teachers’ re-contract were exceeded monthly.”

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the duty of evaluating teachers' work performance in ○ University is recognized as an "independent work to contribute to the development of the university by evaluating teachers' achievements efficiently and fairly and applying the results to reappointment, re-contract, promotion, and salary calculation, etc., thereby promoting the qualitative improvement of the number of months of education and the quality of research and promoting volunteer activities. Thus, even if Defendant 1’s standard points for teachers’ re-contracts exceed monthly, it would not interfere with the crime of interference with business through fraudulent means, unless it is evident that it distorted the result of teachers’ work performance by submitting false data.

3) Therefore, the defendant's above mistake of facts is without merit.

C. Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

1) Defendant 1 asserts that “ even if the teachers’ evaluation of ○ University was obstructed, this is due to insufficient examination by the ○ University, so the crime of interference with business by deceptive means shall not be established.”

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the court’s evidence duly adopted and examined: (i) ○ University to which Defendant 1 belongs examined the criteria for academic value, whether it is a first-hand plate, quantity, and whether it is common satisfying in assessing the author’s book in relation to the evaluation of teachers; (ii) ○ University to which Defendant 1 belongs, examined the standards for the violation of the Copyright Act; (iii) however, it is difficult to confirm whether there was a violation of the Copyright Act, such as forgery, alteration, plagiarism, wrongful thesis author’s indication, or copyright infringement; (iii) informed Defendant 1 of the fact that there was a violation of the said provision regarding the teacher’s status when it was submitted to the ○ University at the time of the evaluation of teachers’ work performance in 2012 (see Article 503 of the Investigation Record); (iii) it is impossible to view Defendant 1 as a person in charge of research performance in the normal course of the evaluation of teachers’ work performance (see Article 161 of the Copyright Act).

3) Therefore, the defendant's above misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the non-guilty parts of the judgment of the court below, an appeal based on the misapprehension of the legal principles by the prosecutor as to the violation of the Copyright Act among the non-guilty parts against the defendants is reasonable. This part of the facts charged is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the conviction against the defendants. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant 1, and it is again decided as follows (as long as the appeal by the defendant 1 is without merit, but the part against the above defendant is reversed by accepting the prosecutor's appeal

1. Defendants 1, 2, and 3

공소외 1은 2010년 2월경 공소외 2로부터 공소외 1의 저작물로서 ◁◁◁◁◁◁에서 곧 발행할 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적에 저작자가 아닌 교수들을 공저자로 추가하자는 요청을 받고 이를 승낙하고, 2014년 5월경 공소외 3으로부터 위 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적에 저작자가 아닌 교수들을 공저자로 추가하자는 요청을 다시 받아 이를 재승낙하였다.

around 2010, Defendant 3 received a request from Nonindicted 2 to add himself as an author, not the author, in the above book, to the author, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received a request from Nonindicted 4 to add himself as an author, not the author, in the above book, around 2010.

공소외 2, 공소외 3, 공소외 4는 2012. 3. 2. ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 및 ▷▷▷▷사 사무실에서 사실은 피고인들이 “(서적명 1 생략)”의 저작자가 아님에도 서적 표지에 실제 저작자인 공소외 1 외 피고인들 등을 공저자로 추가한 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적을 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 명의로 초판 1쇄 발행하고, 2013. 3. 10. 위 사무실에서 위 2012. 3. 2. 초판 1쇄 발행된 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적을 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 명의로 초판 2쇄 발행하고, 공소외 3, 공소외 4는 2014. 6. 30. 위 사무실에서 사실은 피고인 1, 피고인 3이 “(서적명 1 생략)”의 저작자가 아님에도 위와 같이 발행된 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적 표지에 제목은 “(서적명 1 생략)”로 그대로 둔 채 공저자를 실제 저적자인 공소외 1 외 피고인 1, 피고인 3 등으로 일부 변경한 소위 ‘표지갈이’ 서적을 ◁◁◁◁◁◁ 명의로 초판 발행하였다.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order, and made the work public on March 2, 2012 and March 10, 2013, by indicating the real name of a person other than the author. Defendant 1, Defendant 3, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and Nonindicted 4 in order, made the work public by indicating the real name of a person other than the author as the author on June 30, 2014.

2. Defendant 1

피고인은 2012년 11월경 경산시 (주소 1 생략) 소재 ○○대학교 사무실에서 공소외 1이 저작자이고 피고인이 저작자가 아님에도 피고인이 공저자로 표시되어 ◁◁◁◁◁◁이 2012. 3. 2. 초판 1쇄 발행한 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적이 마치 피고인의 저서인 것처럼 업적보고서에 연구업적으로 기재하여 ○○대학교 교원업적평가 담당자에게 2012년도 교원업적평가 자료로 제출하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the teachers' job evaluation work by deceptive means, such as examiners of the teachers' job evaluation of ○ University.

3. Defendant 2

피고인은 2013년 2월경 양주시 (주소 2 생략) 소재 □□대학교 사무실에서 피고인이 저작자가 아님에도 피고인이 공저자로 표시되어 ◁◁◁◁◁◁이 2010. 9. 10. 초판 발행한 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적이 마치 피고인의 저서인 것처럼 교원임용지원서에 기재하여 □□대학교 교원재임용평가 담당자에게 교수재임용평가 자료로 제출하고, 2014년 1월경 위 사무실에서 위 2010. 9. 10. 초판 발행한 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적이 마치 피고인의 저서인 것처럼 교원임용지원서에 기재하여 □□대학교 교원재임용평가 담당자에게 교수재임용평가 자료로 제출하였다.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the evaluation of the appointment of professors by deceptive means, such as examiners of the evaluation of the appointment of professors at Dol University.

4. Defendant 3

피고인은 2010년 9월경 청주시 (주소 3 생략) 소재 ☆☆대학교 사무실에서 피고인이 저작자가 아님에도 피고인이 공저자로 표시되어 ◁◁◁◁◁◁이 2010. 9. 10. 초판 발행한 “(서적명 1 생략)” 서적이 마치 피고인의 저서인 것처럼 업적보고서에 연구업적으로 기재하여 ☆☆대학교 교원업적평가 담당자에게 2010년도 교원업적평가 자료로 제출하였다.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with public officials in charge of the job performance evaluation of teachers, such as a member of the teachers evaluation of the National University of Do, Do, National University.

1. Each legal statement of the witness of the court below, Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 2

1. (Real Name 1 omitted) Any description of the book-keeping information;

1. Each entry in the reply (498 pages of evidence records), the submission of materials, such as research results related to investigation (622 pages of evidence records), the request for cooperation in investigation (request for data on research records submitted by professors of defendant 2) and the case (741 pages of evidence records);

1. Each description and present descriptions of the relevant books;

1. Regulations on the evaluation of the teaching staff of ○○ University;

A. Defendant 1: Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Copyright Act); Articles 314(1) and 313 (the violation of the Copyright Act); the selection of fines, respectively.

B. Defendant 2: Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Copyright Act), Article 314(1) and Article 313 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Copyright Act), the selection of each fine

C. Defendant 3: Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Copyright Act), Article 137 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Copyright Act), and the selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Determination as to the assertion that there was no fact involved in adding the co-owner

A. The Defendants asserted that there was no fact that they participated in adding them to the co-owner of the instant book.

나. 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 이 사건 서적을 출판한 ◁◁◁◁◁◁의 영업직원이었던 원심증인 공소외 4는 ‘2010년경 이 사건 서적에 피고인 1, 피고인 2를 공저자로 추가하기 위해 영업을 하였고, 피고인 1, 피고인 2로부터 허락을 받았다’고 진술한 점(공판기록 제232쪽 참조), ② ◁◁◁◁◁◁의 영업직원이었던 원심증인 공소외 2는 "2010년도에 이 사건 서적을 발행하기 전에 피고인 3에게 공저자 추가 요청을 하였는데, 피고인 3은 원고를 수정하는 형태로 발행에 관여하기까지 하였다"고 진술한 점(공판기록 제203쪽, 제204쪽, 제208쪽 참조), ③ 피고인들이 공저자로 추가된 사실을 몰랐다면 이 사건 서적을 교원업적평가 자료 내지 교수재임용평가 자료로 제출하였을 수 없는 점, ④ 피고인들은 공저자로 추가된 사실을 알고 있었음에도 이에 대하여 항의한 사실이 전혀 없었던 점에 비추어 볼 때 피고인들이 자신들을 이 사건 서적의 공동저자로 추가하는 데에 동의한 사실이 충분히 인정된다.

C. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is rejected.

2. Determination as to the assertion that no functional control was exercised

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 asserted that even if they agreed to add them to the public, they did not participate at all in the publication of the book, and thus, they cannot be deemed that they had functional control over the violation of the Copyright Act.

B. We examine the case. ① Article 137 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act punishs the act of offering a work under the name or pseudonym of a person who is not the author as the author. The act of offering the name is closely related to the elements of the act itself. ② The crime of this case is committed by the publishing company in addition to a false person, which increases the quantity of the book by adding a false person, and the person added to a false person is intended to take advantage of favorable status in reappointment, re-contract, promotion, and calculation of wages based on false performance. The act of offering the name of university professor is essentially contributed to the whole criminal activity plan. ③ If the defendants oppose the defendants to add their names as the author, publishing company did not add the defendants as the author, and if the defendants raise an objection ex post facto, it is reasonable to hold the defendants liable for the crime of this case as a joint principal of the Copyright Act in light of the fact that the purpose of the lawsuit cannot be achieved.

C. Therefore, we cannot accept the above assertion by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

3. Determination as to the assertion that a crime of violation of the Copyright Act is not established because the author's consent was obtained.

A. Defendant 2 asserts that the crime of violation of the Copyright Act is not established because Defendant 2 consented by Nonindicted 1, the original author.

B. In light of the fact that Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act only punishs a person, other than the author, who is not the author, to make a work public under the real name or pseudonym of the author, and does not require such person’s consent. ② The Copyright Act has a separate penal provision regarding copyright infringement (see Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act), ③ the act of making a work public by indicating the real name or pseudonym of a person, other than the author, may be punished without a complaint filed by the victim (see Article 140 subparag. 2 of the Copyright Act), ④ the act of making a work public public by indicating the real name or pseudonym of a person who is not the author, as the author, may be punished by applying Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act even if the consent of the author was obtained.

C. Therefore, Defendant 2’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

However, inasmuch as equity with other cases of the same type of crime as this case already confirmed cannot be considered and thus, a fine shall be selected. However, in full view of various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence shall be determined as ordered by the Disposition.

Judges Sung Ho-ho (Presiding Judge) et al. and leaptables

Note 1) Article 432 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 432 of Jan. 28, 1957; hereinafter “former Copyright Act”).

2) The name of the formal title is “copyright and neighboring Protection Act (copyrighted Copyright Act)” and is “Lber Urhembberm marververbberfe (Urhembberfe)” (hereinafter referred to as “Japan Copyright Act”).

3) For the purpose of Article 8 (Publication) (1) of the former Copyright Act, the term “publication” means the act of reproducing and selling or distributing a work. The author of a work which is not made public under Article 15 (Right of Publication) of the former Copyright Act has the right to freely decide whether to make it public or not.

4) Any person who has published a work in the name and title of a person other than an author under Article 70 of the former Copyright Act shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 50,000 won. A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won:

5) For the purpose of Article 2 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 2 of the same Act), the term “works” means documents, musical instruments, paintings, calligraphic works, calligraphic works, sculptures, architecture, architecture, diagrams, diagrams, models, photographs, musical music, musical works, musical music, singing, singing, singing, singing, singing, musical records, sound recording, tape recording, film, and all other things belonging to the scope of the arts or the arts. Article 4 ( Examples, etc. of Works) of the current Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 1) of the same Act shall be as follows: < Amended by Act No. 1; Act No. 13888, Mar. 3, 200; Act No. 5560, Apr. 5, 2005; Act No. 55613, Aug. 1, 2007>

(6) Article 6 (Publication Works and Publication Works) (1) of the German Copyright Act provides that the publication of a work is a case where the general public has access to the work with the consent of its authorized person. (2) The publication of a work is a case where the reproduction of the work is made in a sufficient quantity and is provided or traded to the general public with the consent of its authorized person. In addition, the work of art is a case where the original or reproduction is made continuously accessible to the general public with the consent of its authorized person.

7) Article 66 of the German Copyright Act (U.S.A.) (1) In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the copyright ceases to exist after the lapse of 70 years from the date of publication. It is the case where the copyright ceases to exist after the lapse of 70 years from the date of creation.

8) Article 107 (Unauthorized Addition of Authors) ① A person who distributes the original of a work of art by adding or adding an indication of the author (Article 10(1)) to or without the consent of the author, a person who distributes the original of the work of art in such a manner that the reproduction of the work of art, the reproduction of the work of art, the reproduction of the work of art or the modified work, or who distributes the reproduction or the modified work so attached (Article 10(1)) in such a manner that the original would have the appearance of the original, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine: Provided, That this shall not apply where the act is more severe punishment pursuant to other provisions. ② A person who attempted to commit such act.

9) Article 3 of the Japanese Copyright Act provides for publication of copyrighted works, and Article 4 provides for publication of copyrighted works.

10)see Articles 52, 53, and 54 of the Japanese Copyright Act.

11) A person who distributes reproduction of a work (including reproduction of a derivative work in which the real name or well-known defense of a person other than the author of the original work is indicated in the name of the author of the original work) indicating the real name or well-known defense of a person other than the author of the original work under Article 121 of the Japanese Copyright Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding one million won, or both.

12) For example, Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that “a claim for damages caused by a tort shall expire by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator.” However, the Supreme Court has the same interpretation as “the extinctive prescription runs from the time when the Plaintiff becomes aware of the damages and the perpetrator” (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 66Da615, Jun. 9, 196).

In a case where a thesis written by another person was published in the academic journal as if the paper was written by the defendant, alone or jointly, and was included in the paper research paper, the Supreme Court held that “in a case where the paper was written by another person as if it were written by the defendant, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no risk of undermining the appropriateness or fairness of the duties of promotion examination solely on the ground that other thesis except the pertinent paper met the requirements for promotion of associate professors monthlyly, and thus constitutes a crime of interference with business by deceptive means” (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4772, Sept. 10, 200).

Note 14) Although Defendants 2 and 3 did not appeal, as long as the court below accepted the prosecutor’s appeal on the violation of the Copyright Act, which was pronounced not guilty, and pronounced guilty, it is necessary to judge the above Defendants’ assertion related thereto.