The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the facts charged of this case, the indictment procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of law, since the facts charged are not specified, since the Defendant’s act infringed upon the Defendant’s right to defense, without specifically specifying where the infringement corresponding to the reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, lending, and secondary copyrighted works under Article 136(1) of the Copyright Act is not specified.

(2) The Defendant used the image images of this case purchased from the victim for the preparation of a design drawing of the website. This is the result newly created through the process of transformation, processing, placement, and composition, and thus, it does not constitute “duplicating, performance, public transmission, display, distribution, and lending” under Article 136(1) of the Copyright Act premised on the use of “original works.” According to the agreement entered into with the victim at the time of purchase, the Defendant may modify and re-processed the design novels. However, the modified and re-processed contents cannot be used in the web-based item. However, since the design drawing is not the web-based item, the Defendant’s preparation of the design drawing does not infringe on the victim’s copyright by means of the secondary work preparation.

In addition, since the Defendant created the website on the premise that the client purchased the image of this case from the victim, it cannot be said that there was a violation of the Copyright Act on the ground that the Defendant did not obtain a separate permission for use from the victim. The image of this case was provided for web design, that is, for the creation of the website, so the victim allowed the “exploiting”. Thus, unless the Defendant copied or resells the image, the Defendant cannot be said to have violated the Copyright Act.