The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

(a) Article 2 Subparag. 22 of the Copyright Act provides that the meaning of “duplicating” is “temporary or permanent fixing or remaking in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording or other means.”

Such reproduction includes the reproduction of a work in the form of a design or drawing, which is a three-dimensional sculpture.

The latter part of the said provision stipulates that “in the case of a building, it includes the construction of a building in accordance with its models or drawings for the construction thereof.” However, this is merely a confirmatory provision that clearly intends to specify that a building is reproduced even if the construction of a building is conducted in accordance with its models or drawings, which is a work of work.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the above legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s production of the instant sculptures in accordance with the instant design as indicated in the lower judgment’s holding on the grounds indicated in its reasoning infringed on the victim’s property right.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the meaning of reproduction.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that the Defendant had produced the instant sculptures without obtaining permission from the victim, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, or did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.