저작권법위반
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. Defendant A, around January 8, 2014, at the second floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD Building, the Defendant infringed on the victim’s author’s property rights by reproducing the “ springing”, “rehing”, and “school material” without permission, which are an author’s property rights program held by the victim’s le-design Research Institute, and installing it on a computer, using the victim’s property rights on its website image and dynamic image production, etc.
B. Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of online education business.
A, the representative of the defendant, infringed the victim's property rights in relation to the defendant's business as described in paragraph 1.
2. According to Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act, where an act of infringing upon author’s property right or other property rights protected under the Copyright Act is committed by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lending, or preparation of derivative copyrighted works, the relevant actor shall be punished. Thus, if an employee of a corporation merely engaged in such act of infringement and the representative of a corporation does not directly engage in such act, the relevant representative shall not be punished as an actor under the same Act.
I would like to say.
As to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant A, the representative of Defendant B, was an act of reproducing the body program of Defendant B without permission as stated in the facts charged of “direct” and installing it on a computer and using it for the production, etc. of image and lectures on the website. However, in full view of the evidence of this case, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, in full view of the evidence of this case, Defendant B’s employee appears to have performed the above act, and the Defendants cannot be punished as a violation of the Copyright Act.
3. In conclusion, all of the facts charged of this case are without proof of crime.