The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The amount equivalent to the above fine shall be paid provisionally.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the judgment of the first instance court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The instant video lectures constitute a separate work without any substantial similarity with the textbook and problem book (hereinafter “the instant teaching materials”) which are the victim’s copyrighted works.

2) Of the instant video lectures, an abstract description of the contents of the instant teaching materials constitutes “a quotation of a work already made public” or “fair use” as prescribed by the Copyright Act due to the restriction on property rights of author.

3) Since the victim exercises a copyright to receive excessive usage fees exceeding the original value of the instant teaching materials based on the de facto dominant status, such exercise of the copyright by the injured party constitutes abuse of rights, and thus, the Defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the Copyright Act.

B. The punishment for one of the following reasons is too unreasonable: (a) the punishment for one of the following reasons; (b) the punishment for the sentence for the sentencing (10 million won);

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the appellate court, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the content that “after being manufactured,” and “after being deleted,” in the part of the indictment No. 1 and the part of the indictment No. 2, and since this Court permitted it, the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Part 1 of the assertion that the instant video lectures are separate works, i.e., the copyrighted work based on the original copyrighted work has become a new work independent from the original copyrighted work

§ 23.