The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) connected the Internet E-site of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu to the clinic of “F”; and (b) claimed a web site to the web site; and (c) opened a file containing 8 page of the cartoon of “H” (hereinafter “the cartoon of this case”) in which the victim’s property right was created to G, thereby infringing the victim’s author’s property right by allowing a large number of unspecified website visitors to download without permission.

2. The determination under Article 28 of the Copyright Act is that a work already made public may be quoted for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc., in compliance with the fair practices within the reasonable scope;

The Act stipulates.

In order to fall under this provision, the purpose of the quotation is not limited to news reports, criticism, education, and research, but the "reasonable scope" of the quoted is in the relation with the quoted work, which is used in the form of the expression of the quoted work as evidence, incidental to the quoted work (i.e., the quoted work is the principal, and the quoted work is a paper).

The determination should be made by comprehensively taking account of the purpose of quotation, the nature of the work, the contents and quantity of the quoted work, the method and form that contains the original work, the general concept of readers, and whether the demand for the original work is replaced by the original work, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5835, Feb. 15, 2013). Based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act in question appears to be “the quotation of the work publicly announced” under Article 28 of the Copyright Act, and each evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone infringed on the victim’s property right.