logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.11.20 2020노829
저작권법위반
Text

All prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

Reasons

The key point of the grounds for appeal is whether the Defendants had the intent of copyright infringement.

Defendant

The J, which stated that the Defendant Company was well aware of the company’s design work and M brand, and that each department store (the above M brand product was sold) located in the Defendant Company, was aware of the fact that the original unit of this case was in violation of the complainant’s copyright.

In addition, the E-K, who sold the original group, stated that he sold it to the Defendants without knowing the copyright infringement of each original group of this case, but in light of the fact that he was issued a summary order as a violation of the Copyright Act, it was reasonable to deem that he was aware of the copyright infringement and that he was informed of it to the said J.

Therefore, even though it is reasonable to see that the Defendants, who manufactured clothes using the above original team, had the intention of copyright infringement, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Summary of the facts charged of this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. As to this, the court below stated that the employees JJ of the Defendant Company that purchased each of the original parts of this case was unaware of the copyright infringement of each of the original parts of this case at the time of purchase, and stated that L of E and H, which sold each of the original parts of this case to the Defendants, was sold to the Defendants without knowledge of the copyright infringement of each of the original parts of this case. ② Each of the original parts of this case has the characteristics repeated in various fireworks forms, and it is believed that each of the original parts of this case infringed the copyright of this case only in the shape of these original parts.

arrow