The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of unfair sentencing along with other grounds for appeal, if he later withdraws the grounds for appeal other than unfair sentencing prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed as the grounds for appeal that there

(2) According to the records, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance on October 26, 2006, and asserted misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles along with the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn all the grounds for appeal other than the unfair sentencing on July 8, 201 on the first day of the trial of the lower court on July 8, 2011. Thus, the allegation that the lower judgment erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Copyright Act, is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining ex officio, the Copyright Act defines copyrighted works as “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act, and includes works not protected under Article 7, such as the Constitution, Acts, treaties, orders, municipal ordinances and rules ( Subparagraph 1), public notification, direction, and other similar things ( Subparagraph 2), court rulings, decisions, orders, and rulings by the State or local governments, administrative appeals procedures, and other similar procedures ( Subparagraph 3), and the compilations or translations ( Subparagraph 4), which are prepared by the State or local governments, and are merely the delivery of facts ( Subparagraph 5).

Therefore, the term "works subject to the protection of copyright law" is not belonging to the works that are not protected, but is obtained by human mental efforts.