The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of criminal facts is that a person shall not infringe upon another person’s property right protected by the law by displaying the author’s property right. However, on April 20, 2015, the Defendant infringed on the victim’s copyright by posting one point of photographic work, the victim D’s copyright, on the Defendant’s Blob in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the Defendant’s Blobb, in a manner of posting it without permission.

2. In the case of a photographic work, creativity is required in order to constitute a work protected under the Copyright Act. The photograph of this case is a “work already made public” made public on the Internet website by digitalizing the pictures of the complainant to sell his/her right to use the copyrighted work on the Internet, as the photographer’s identity and creativity are recognized in the course of the selection of the body, the establishment of the instrument, the direction and quantity of light, and the method of photographing the photographer’s identity and creativity, such as the creation of a camera, etc.

In that sense, the following circumstances revealed by the record, namely, ① the Defendant, as a patent attorney for a long time, shared the writing and precedents on the protection of intellectual property rights, including patent, by posting the experience and knowledge, etc. obtained as a patent attorney on personal blographs. During that process, the Defendant inserted the instant pictures for the long-term effect by notifying the information on the definition of trade secrets, type of infringement, remedy methods, etc. as a title “protection of trade secrets,” and ② generally, in the case of photographic works for sale by digitalization of images, the Defendant inserted the form of non-refluence, such as “heatmark,” etc., or indicated the right management information that indicates the right holder or source. However, in the case of the instant pictures, it appears that the Defendant, as a private person without such mark, did not have a copyright holder or it appears that he had been permitted to use the pictures, was the Defendant’s mark.