Even if the above Association has the authority to collect the relevant royalties, etc.

Even if the Defendant pays the user fee, such as a series of singing machines, to the manufacturers of singing machines (H), the Defendant is not obligated to pay the user fee, etc. separately.

In addition, there was no notification from the above Association that the defendant would pay copyright fees, etc. while operating the relevant singing practice room, and thus did not know that the defendant was a crime.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of violating the Copyright Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 42(1) and (2) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 6134, Jan. 12, 2000) of the relevant legal doctrine (amended by Act No. 6134, Jan. 12, 200) (Article 46(1) and (2) of the current Copyright Act) permits the author’s property right holder to exploit his/her work to another person, and the person so permitted may exploit the work within the extent of the method and conditions so permitted.

In violation of this provision, the act of running a business against the general public in a way that purchases reproduced musical musical instruments without permission of the copyright holder and plays the home and musical instruments reproduced in the singing room is considered as an act infringing on the property right of the author.

In the event that the Korea Music Copyright Association, which is a copyright entrustment management business entity for music works, permits the manufacture of musical instruments, such as the reproduction of musical instruments, or the addition of new music, to use music copyrighted works, it is difficult for the said producer to reproduce the copyrighted works and put them in singing machines, unless there are special circumstances.