We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. The first instance court's judgment on the scope of the trial in this case pronounced not guilty on the grounds of the first instance court's second second sentence No. 1 of the facts charged in the instant case's judgment, and found guilty on the contents of the revised crime's list in the judgment of the first instance court.

Only the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of mistake of facts (the scope of the appeal is not expressly indicated by the Defendants, but it is evident that the grounds for appeal are the mistake of facts about the conviction). Thus, the prosecutor did not appeal against the part of the judgment of first instance as to the acquittal of the aforementioned grounds. Thus, the part of the acquittal of the grounds is also subject to the principle of indivisible appeal, but the part is already exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 191, etc.) and the part is subject to the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is not separately determined in the trial.

2. The content of the revised list of crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) of the summary of the grounds for appeal cannot be deemed as a copyrighted work of the victim J (hereinafter “victim”) that is a “originality” as a common meeting with the sentences handled in the materials of the Chinese language as a long as it is long as the contents of the list of offenses in the judgment of the court of first instance are old or ordinary expressions used in the daily life, or ordinary language, and is not a copyrighted work protected under the Copyright Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which pronounced guilty against the Defendants is erroneous by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Copyright Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. Works protected by the relevant legal principles must be creative representations of ideas or emotions obtained by people’s psychological effort, and the subject of copyright protection is an individual who has shown the originality of the author.