logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014고정3695
저작권법위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. A person who uses a work already made public by Defendant A for news reporting, criticism, education, research, etc. shall indicate its source;

Nevertheless, on November 23, 2013, the Defendant, at the B office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, cited “E” as a cinematographic work publicly announced by the victim F via the Internet pipeline website in the H News Severe, and used the said copyrighted work for six times as shown in the list of crimes, and broadcasted the E’s English log included in the said copyrighted work to delete the above copyrighted work, thereby violating the obligation to indicate the source.

2. Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of broadcasting business.

The above A, who is an employee of the defendant, violated the obligation to indicate the source while citing the work published by the above victim in relation to the defendant's work as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to screen the original cinematographic work and to the closure of each broadcasting company’s news report image, the cinematographic work which is the complainant, and the news report of each broadcasting company, and investigation report (verification of a hybrid video);

1. Article 138 subparagraph 2 of the Copyright Act and subparagraph 2 of Article 138 and Article 37 (Overall Control) of the same Act: Article 141 and Article 138 subparagraph 2 of the same Act and Article 37 of the same Act;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The victim’s “ [E]G” (hereinafter “the instant video”) asserts that it is not subject to protection under the Copyright Act pursuant to Article 7 subparag. 5 of the Copyright Act because it falls under the current news report that is merely a mere delivery of facts, but considering the selection and arrangement of materials, the choice of cameras, the editing of films and other production methods along with the expressions reported in the instant video works.

arrow