logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.13 2014노5298
저작권법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The act of neglecting the circumstances in which the employee of the defendant company used the victim's copyrighted works without permission and used the victim's copyrighted works on the defendant company's website and the motion pictures with knowledge of the defendant A constitutes an act of infringing intellectual property rights.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted Defendant A on the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that Defendant A did not directly reproduce and use the victim’s work without permission.

The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged (1) around January 8, 2014, Defendant A infringed on the victim’s author’s property rights by reproducing the victim’s property rights in the second floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD Building, using the victim’s property rights by reproducing the body program, the victim’s lux program, the victim’s lux design research institute’s property rights.

(2) Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of online education business.

A, the representative of the defendant, infringed the victim's property rights in relation to the defendant's business as described in paragraph (1).

B. According to Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act, the lower court held that the act of infringing upon author’s property right or other property rights protected under the Copyright Act by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lending, or preparation of derivative copyrighted works is punishable. Thus, if a corporation’s employee was merely an act of infringing as above and the representative was not directly engaged in such act, the representative cannot be punished as an actor under the above Act.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is as shown in the facts charged that Defendant A, the representative of Defendant B, was “direct.”

arrow