In the case of a crime subject to prosecution on complaint, whether a separate complaint is required against the person punished by the joint penal provisions (negative)

Inasmuch as a criminal complaint is an expression of intent of the victim of a crime or a person who has the right to file a complaint related to him/her to report the criminal facts to an investigative agency and seek punishment for the criminal, it is sufficient for the complainant to report the criminal facts and to identify who is the offender and who is the person who seeks punishment from among the criminal offenders. As such, joint penal provisions under Article 103 of the Copyright Act provide that the subject, etc. of the business shall be punished with no conditions or immunity in addition to the person who committed the illegal act, and it cannot be deemed that the provisions are separate from the illegal act in question. Thus, in cases of a crime subject to victim's complaint, it is sufficient to file a criminal complaint against the offender, and further, it cannot be said that separate criminal

Articles 102 and 103 of the Copyright Act, Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 93No1703, 5231 delivered on July 20, 1994

The part of the lower judgment pertaining to Defendant 2’s accounting firm is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Court. Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

1. We examine Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below's decision that found Defendant 1 not guilty of the above defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 conspired with Co-Defendant 1 in the court below's act of infringement of copyright of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal against Defendant 2’s accounting firm.

The court below found Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to have filed a complaint under Article 102 of the Copyright Act on the ground that the crime of this case against Defendant 2 accounting corporation is an offense subject to complaint which may be prosecuted only upon the complaint under Article 102 of the Copyright Act, and the complaint in this case should be filed within six months from the date of becoming aware of the offender. According to the records of this case, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 who are the representative member of the accounting corporation of Defendant 2 and Defendant 2, who are the above Defendant's employees, infringed on the copyright of the set-sum book taken over by the complainant from the accounting corporation, while writing the Corporate Tax Act, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, who are the above Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, were accused of the above facts that Defendant 9 and Defendant 2, who were the above defendant 1 and Defendant 2, were not guilty at the time of the prosecution of this case on the ground that the above crimes were committed against Defendant 1 and the above co-defendant 9, who were the above accounting corporation, after the prosecution of this case.

However, inasmuch as a complaint is filed by a victim of a crime or a person who has the right to file a complaint in a certain relationship with him/her to report the crime to an investigative agency and seek the punishment of a criminal, it is sufficient for the complainant to report the criminal facts and to identify who is the criminal and who is the person who seeks the punishment from among the criminal offenders. As such, the joint penal provisions under Article 103 of the above Act provide that the subject of the business shall be punished with no conditions or exemption from liability, and it cannot be deemed that the crime is separate from the relevant illegal act. Thus, in cases of a crime subject to victim's complaint, it is sufficient to file a complaint against the offender, and further, a separate complaint is required against the person who is punished by the joint penal provisions.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint penal provisions and complaints, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant 2's indictment against the above defendant, who is punished by joint penal provisions, and thus, the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 accounting corporation is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)