beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, and C
A. Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act provides that a person who makes a work public under the real name or pseudonym of a person other than the author shall be subject to criminal punishment.
The purpose of the above provision is to protect the credibility of the society in the name of the author as well as the real personal rights of the author, which are expressed as the author by a person other than the author on his own work against his own will and against his own will by a person other than the author.
Considering such legislative intent, the crime under the above provision was established as long as a work is made public by indicating a person other than the author as the author, and the actual author’s consent was obtained with respect to such publication, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the trust of the general public in society is not undermined in light of the social norms.
It is not different even if there is no difference.
In addition, publication under the Copyright Act refers to the disclosure of the works to the public by means of public performance, public transmission or exhibition and by other means, and the publication of the works.
(Article 2 subparag. 25 of the Copyright Act). In light of the literal meaning of such publication and the legislative purport of Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act, even if a work subject to false representation is already made public, the establishment of a crime under the said provision does not affect the establishment of a crime, even if there is no prior publication of a work
(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16031 Decided October 26, 2017). B.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant A, B, and C guilty of each of the instant facts charged (excluding the acquittal portion) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred and empirical rules