Defendant 1 and 15 others

Manman et al.

Law Firm Leesan et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor and fine of 30,000,000 won, and fine of 30,000,000 won, respectively.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The forty-three days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with labor for Defendant 1.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the execution of the above imprisonment with labor for Defendant 1 shall be suspended.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are ordered to make provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines.

2. Defendant 3’s imprisonment with prison labor and fine of 30,000,000 won, Defendant 4’s imprisonment with prison labor and fine of 10,000,000 won, and Defendant 5’s stock company shall be punished by fine of 30,00,000 won.

When Defendant 3 and 4 fail to pay each of the above fines, Defendant 3 and 4 shall be confined in each workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The 22-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 3, and one day shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 4.

Defendant 3, 4, and 5 are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines on the stock company.

3. Defendant 6 shall be punished by imprisonment for 10 months and a fine of 30,000,000 won.

When Defendant 6 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 6 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The one day under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 6.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine against Defendant 6.

4. Defendant 7 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by a fine of 30,000,000 won and by a fine of 30,000,000 won, respectively.

When Defendant 7 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 7 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The forty-three days of detention before the sentence of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 7.

Defendant 7 and Defendant 8 are ordered to make provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines.

5. Defendant 9 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor and fine of 30,000,000 won, and fine of 30,000,000 won, respectively.

When Defendant 9 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 9 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The 44-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with labor for Defendant 9.

Defendant 9 and Defendant 10 are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines on the stock company.

6. Defendant 11 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 1 year and fine of 30,00,000 won and by a fine of 30,000,000 won, respectively.

When Defendant 11 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 11 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The forty-four days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 11.

Defendant 11 and Defendant 12 are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines on the stock company.

7. Defendant 13 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 1 year and fine of 30,000,000 won and by a fine of 30,00,000 won, respectively.

When Defendant 13 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 13 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The forty-three days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 13.

Defendant 13 and 14 are ordered to make provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines against the stock company.

8. Defendant 15 is punished by a fine of 10,00,000 won, and Defendant 16 is punished by a fine of 30,000,000 won.

When Defendant 15 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 15 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant 15 and Defendant 16 are ordered to make provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines.

The following facts may be found by the evidence of conviction:

1. Details of web mileage services;

It is an Internet file management system that enables users to download, read, edit, and download online contents files at any place where online access is possible, which is a storage space of online contents files, and enable other people to download such files.

As such, in addition to the function of providing large capacity storage space in virtual space, such as the direct meaning of the terms, it is possible to access and download online contents stored on the web server (Weberver) only if the Internet is connected, so it is also possible to function as a tool for sharing online contents files. A part of the service users operate online contents files such as movies and music, without obtaining permission for use from the copyright holder through the web storage service.

2. The method of operating the services of the web mileage company against which an indictment was filed, and the status of the Defendants;

A. On February 22, 2001, Defendant 1 was appointed as the representative director of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.”) with the purpose of the digital communications network business, database and online information providing business, etc., Defendant 1 has overall control over the Internet business sector, including the ○○ gambling place that began from May 2002 to July 2004 and the △△ gambling business that began from July 2004.

나. 피고인 3은 1998. 1. 9. 공소외 3 주식회사를 설립하여 2002년 12월경부터 ◁◁◁◁◁라는 사이트를 운영하다가, 2004. 10. 1. 회사 명칭을 피고인 5 주식회사로 변경하였으며, 1998년 1월경부터 9월경까지, 2001년경부터 2003년 8월경까지 공소외 3 주식회사의 대표이사로 재직하였고, 2003년 8월경부터 2004년 10월경까지 위 각 회사의 이사로, 2005년 10월경부터 고문으로 재직하고 있으며, 본인 및 가족 등 명의로 피고인 5 주식회사의 주식 100%를 보유하고 있다.

On July 14, 2005, Defendant 4 was appointed as the representative director of Defendant 5 corporation for the purpose of the value-added telecommunications service business and related incidental business, and is in service until now.

피고인 3은 2002년 12월경부터 ◁◁◁◁◁(ww.erostoto.com) 사이트를 통해 웹스토리지 사업을 개시하였는바, 피고인 5 주식회사는 2007년 3월경 위 사이트를 ▽▽▽▽(인터넷 주소 1 생략)로 변경하였다.

다. 피고인 6은 2006. 12. 31.경부터 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷란 상호로 온라인 정보 제공업을 영위하여 왔고, 그 무렵부터 ♤♤♤♤♤ 사이트를 통해 웹스토리지 서비스를 제공하고 있다.

라. 피고인 7은 2003. 9. 8. 인터넷 스토리지 임대업 등을 목적으로 하는 피고인 8 주식회사를 설립하여 대표자인 이사로 재직하여 왔고, 그 무렵부터 ☆☆☆☆☆ 사이트를 통해 웹스토리지 서비스를 제공하고 있다.

마. 피고인 10 주식회사는 2005. 12. 14. 온라인 정보 제공업 및 기타 인터넷 관련사업을 목적으로 하여 설립된 법인으로, 2007. 1. 16.부터 ◈◈◈ 사이트를 통해 웹스토리지 서비스를 제공하다가, 2008년 7월 하순경 제3자에게 ◈◈◈ 사이트와 관련 장비 등을 처분하였다.

피고인 9는 ◈◈◈ 사이트 개설 및 운영 업무를 담당하다가, 2008. 3. 15. 피고인 10 주식회사의 대표이사로 취임하여 2008. 8. 15.경까지 재직하였다.

바. 피고인 11은 공소외 4 등과 함께 2003. 10. 2. 디지털컨텐츠 중개업 관련 부대사업 등을 목적으로 하는 피고인 12 주식회사를 설립하여 2004년 7월경부터 ◐◐◐◐ 사이트를 통해 웹스토리지 서비스를 제공하고 있으며, 2008. 1. 3. 피고인 12 주식회사의 대표이사로 취임하여, 현재까지 재직하고 있다.

사. 피고인 13은 공소외 5 등과 함께 2006. 7. 11. 온라인 정보 제공업 및 부대 사업 등을 목적으로 하는 피고인 14 주식회사를 설립하여 대표자인 이사로 취임한 후, 2006년 10월경부터 ♡♡♡♡ 사이트를 통해 웹스토리지 서비스를 제공하다가, 2007년 12월경 피고인 14 주식회사와 웹스토리지 사업부분을 매각하였고, 2008년 6월경까지 피고인 14 주식회사에 근무하면서 저작권 관련 업무 및 사업 이전 업무 등에 관여하였다.

아. 피고인 16 주식회사는 1991. 12. 12. 정보통신 서비스업 및 인터넷 관련 제반 사업 등을 목적으로 설립된 법인으로, 그 무렵부터 ▤▤□□□□ 사이트를 통해 웹스토리지 서비스를 제공하고 있다.

Since 2003, Defendant 15 works as the head of the platform business headquarters including web mileage service, and has overall control over the business part.

(i)In addition, a summary of the service operation methods of the web store entity against which an indictment has been filed is as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 순번 사이트 명 운 영 방 식 업로드 방식 다운로드 방식 기 타 검색기능 영화 관련 블로그, 클럽에 관한 정보 제공 1 ○○박스 블로그 ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(100GB/30일) 전체 파일에 대한 검색기능은 없고, 해당 이용자가 운영하거나 회원으로 가입되어 있는 블로그 또는 클럽 내의 파일에 대하여는 검색 가능 ‘박스 친구찾기’ 기능 : 인기 키워드로 ‘영화’, ‘최신’, ‘최신영화’ 등 영화 관련 단어가 설정되어 있고, 검색 결과를 사용용량, 보관기간, 자료수별로 정렬 가능하며, 다른 회원이 친구로 받아들이면 그 블로그의 자료까지 이용할 수 있음 ○ 이용회원이 20만 명이 넘고 영화파일이 2,500 내지 9,000개에 이르는 영화 관련 클럽 등이 있음 ○ 다운로드 시 업로더에 대한 금전적 보상은 없음 ○ 업로드 된 자료를 초당 50Kb의 전송속도로 무료 다운로드를 받을 수 있도록 하는 한편, 대용량파일의 다운로드의 경우 무료 다운로드 시 많은 시간이 필요하고 그 안정성 또한 확보되기 어렵다는 점에 착안하여 유료의 초고속 다운로드 기능을 제공하고, 이를 원하는 이용자들에게서 3MB당 1원을 과금함(정액제도 있으나, 이용실적은 적음) △△박스 클럽 ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(100GB/10일) ‘박스찾기’ 기능 : 용량이 많은 순서로 정렬 가능 ○ 다운로드 시 업로더에 대한 금전적 보상은 없음 ○ 박스공간 사용량, 누적다운로드 총량 등을 기준으로 박스 점수를 매겨 동, 은, 금 박스로 등급을 상승시킬 수 있게 하고, 이에 따라 일정 혜택(저장기간 연장, 저장공간 확대)을 부여함 ○ 웹링크 기능(파일을 업로드한 후 URL을 웹링크 시켜 이를 클릭하면 바로 해당 파일의 다운로드가 가능하도록 하는 서비스)을 제공함 2 ▽▽▽▽ 클럽 및 블로그 ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(무제한/15일) ‘토토브라우저’라는 전용브라우저를 통해 전체 파일에 대해 검색이 가능하고, 클럽, 블로그별로 검색하는 것도 가능 ○ 클럽 메인화면에 클럽 카테고리(영화/연극, 만화/애니메이션 등), 추천 클럽, 클럽 랭킹, 클럽 홍보 등을 제공하여, 이용자가 원하는 클럽을 쉽게 찾을 수 있도록 함 ○ 웹링크 기능 제공 ○ 다운로드 시 이용자들에게 4MB당 1원을 과금하여 그 중 10%를 업로더에게 지급하고 나머지를 사이트의 수익으로 함 ○ ‘친구추가’ 기능 : 별도의 승인 없이 다른 이용자의 친구가 될 수 있고, 이 경우 해당 블로그의 자료를 이용할 수 있음 3 ♤♤♤♤♤ 클럽 및 게시판 ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(1TB/45일) 검색창을 통해 전체 파일에 대해 검색이 가능할 뿐만 아니라, 클럽 및 게시판별로 검색하는 것도 가능함 ○ ‘♤♤공유’의 게시판 기능 : 자료가 카테고리별(영화, 게임, 만화 등)로 분류되어 있고, 다시 영화 카테고리는 최신영화, 액션/판타지, 멜로, 코미디 등 장르별로 분류되어 있으며, 클럽에서 파일 업로드 후 ‘♤♤공유 등록하기’를 체크하면 바로 게시판에 등록됨 ○ 대형 포털사이트에 ‘영화, 드라마, 애니, 유틸, 클럽형 무한공유사이트’, ‘최신영화, 드라마, 애니, 유틸, MP3 쉬운 검색, 무한다운로드’, ‘최신영화, 파일공유, 드라마, 최신영화다운, 고화질영화 파일공유’ 등으로 광고됨 ○ 메인화면에 ‘영화’ 등의 제목으로 검색 항목을 분류하고, 영화 항목을 클릭하면 업로드시 영화 카테고리로 분류·업로드한 파일이 정렬됨 ○ 다운로드 시 이용자들에게 5MB당 1원을 과금하여 그 중 10%를 업로더에게 패킷 형태로 지급하고 나머지를 사이트의 수익으로 함 ○ 클럽 메인화면에 베스트 클럽, 클럽 랭킹 등을 제시함 ○ 추천인 제도 및 파트너 제도 등을 통해 다른 회원을 가입시킬 경우 금전적으로 보상해 주는 등 회원가입을 촉진하고, 다운로드가 많은 클럽에 대해 지원금을 교부하고 파트너들에게 자신이 유치한 회원들이 다운로드를 받을 경우 다운로더가 지급한 요금의 일부를 지급함 ○ 클럽 메인화면에 클럽 카테고리(만화/애니메이션, 영화/비디오 등), 추천 클럽, 클럽 홍보 등을 제공하여, 이용자가 원하는 클럽을 쉽게 찾을 수 있게 함 4 ☆☆☆☆☆ 클럽 (카페) ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(300GB/30일) 전용 브라우저를 통해 전체 파일에 대한 검색이 가능할 뿐만 아니라, 카페별로 검색하는 것도 가능함 ○ ‘친구추가’ 기능 : 별도의 승인 없이 다른 이용자의 친구가 될 수 있고, 이 경우 해당 카페의 자료를 이용할 수 있음 ○ 웹링크 기능 제공 ○ 다운로드 시 이용자들에게 3MB당 1원을 과금하여 그 중 10%를 업로더에게 포인트의 형태로 지급하고 나머지를 사이트의 수익으로 함 ○ 카페 검색, 카페 소개, 카페 랭킹, 카페 홍보 등을 제공하여, 이용자가 원하는 카페를 쉽게 찾을 수 있게 함 5 ◈◈◈ 블로그 및 게시판 ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(블로그는 10TB/90일, 게시판은 100GB/30일) 게시판 및 각 블로그별로 검색 가능 ○ 게시판을 영화, 드라마, 동영상, 게임, 애니, 유틸, 만화 등으로 분류해 놓고, 다시 영화 카테고리의 경우 최신/미개봉, 한국영화, 공포/스릴러 등 장르별로 분류해 놓았으며, 세부 카테고리를 클릭하면 최근 업로드된 순서대로 파일이 게시되어 곧바로 다운로드를 받을 수 있음 ○ 대형 포털사이트에 ‘영화, 동영상 등 다운로드 제공’ 또는 ‘각종 최신영화, 무료다운로드, 초고속 다운로드, 무료가입시 2GB 공짜다운로드’ 등으로 광고됨 ○ 다운로드 시 판매자가 설정한 요금(최소 10MB당 1원)을 과금하여 그 중 10~25%를 업로더에게 제공하고 나머지를 사이트의 수익으로 함 ○ 메인화면에 영화 파일 등 카테고리별 콘텐츠가 노출되어 있음 ○ 추천인 제도(새로운 회원을 유치하면 새로 가입한 회원이 결제한 금액의 20%를 지급해 주는 제도)를 실시하는 등 적극적으로 회원유치함 ○ 카테고리별 ◎◎박스, ◎◎박스 홍보란, ◎◎박스 랭킹(방문자수, 즐겨찾기)을 제공 ○ 용량, 방문자 수, 즐겨찾기 수 기준으로 ◎◎박스 정렬 가능함 6 ◐◐◐◐ 블로그 및 게시판 ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(블로그는 100GB/90일, 게시판은 무제한) 게시판 및 각 블로그별로 검색 가능 게시판을 영화, 드라마, 동영상, 애니, 게임, 만화, 교육, 유틸, 기타로 분류해 놓고, 다시 영화 카테고리의 경우 최신/미개봉, 한국영화, 공포/스릴러 등 장르별로 분류해 놓음. 세부 카테고리를 클릭하면 최근 업로드된 순서대로 파일이 게시되어 바로 다운로드를 받을 수 있음 ○ 대형 포털사이트에 ‘영화, 동영상 다운로드, 파일공유’ 등으로 광고됨 ○ 다운로드 시 판매자가 설정한 요금(최소 100MB당 10원)을 과금하여 그 중 25%를 업로더에게 제공하고 나머지를 사이트의 수익으로 함 ○ 이용자들이 요청한 자료를 자주 올린 업로더들에게는 더 많은 적립금을 지급함 ○ 끌어올리기라는 아이템을 이용하는 경우, 판매자는 업로드 한 파일을 게시판 상단에 게시할 수 있음 7 ♡♡♡♡ 블로그 ○ 무료저장공간 제공함(1TB/30일) 전용브라우저를 통해 전체 파일에 대해 검색 가능함 ‘친구추가’ 기능 : 별도의 승인 없이 다른 이용자의 친구가 될 수 있고, 이 경우 해당 블로그의 자료를 이용할 수 있음 ○ 대형 포털사이트에 ‘영화 다운로드’, ‘동영상 다운로드’, ‘최신영화자료’ 등으로 광고됨 ○ 다운로드 시 이용자들에게 3MB당 1원을 과금하여 그 중 10%를 업로더에게 지급하고 나머지를 사이트의 수익으로 함 ○ 웹링크 기능 제공함 8 □□□□□ 클럽 ○ 유료(1GB당 13,000원/월)로 저장공간을 제공하지만, 이용자가 파일을 다운로드 하기 위해 클럽에 가입하려면 자신이 구매한 저장공간의 전부 또는 일부를 그 클럽에 기부하여야 하고, 저장공간의 구매기간(30일)이 경과하면 클럽에서 탈퇴될 수 있어 계속 회원으로 남기 위해서는 저장공간을 다시 구매하여야 하므로, 실제로는 정액제 파일공유 서비스와 동일한 형태로 운영됨 전체 파일에 대한 검색기능은 없고, 해당 이용자가 회원으로 가입되어 있는 클럽 내의 파일에 대하여는 검색이 가능함 ○ 클럽 메인화면에 클럽 카테고리(종합, 영화, 애니, 드라마 등), 추천 클럽, 클럽 랭킹, 클럽 홍보 등을 제공하여, 이용자가 원하는 클럽을 쉽게 찾을 수 있게 함 ○ 다운로드 시 업로더에 대한 금전적 보상은 없음 ○ 클럽 검색 기능 : 카테고리별로 총용량 순, 회원 수 순으로 클럽 정렬 가능

3. The business page of illegal film files by the users of the indicted site;

위 각 사이트에 회원으로 가입한 이용자들이 저작재산권자의 이용허락을 받지 영화 온라인콘텐츠 파일을 그 각 사이트에 업로드 하였는바, 피고인 2 회사의 ○○박스와 △△박스 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 1 기재와 같고, 피고인 5 주식회사의 ▽▽▽▽ 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 2 기재와 같고, 피고인 6의 ♤♤♤♤♤ 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 3 기재와 같고, 피고인 8 주식회사의 ☆☆☆☆☆ 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 4 기재와 같고, 피고인 10 주식회사의 ◈◈◈ 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 5 기재와 같고, 피고인 12 주식회사의 ◐◐◐◐ 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 6 기재와 같고, 피고인 14 주식회사의 ♡♡♡♡ 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 7 기재와 같고, 피고인 16 주식회사의 ▤▤□□□□□ 사이트에 업로드된 영화 온라인콘텐츠는 별지 범죄일람표 8 기재와 같다.

The prosecutor indicted the defendants, who are the operators of each site, on the violation of the Copyright Act through the infringement of author's property rights by illegal film files that users of the above site posted, to bear the responsibility for joint principal offenders or aiding and abetting crimes. The court held that the defendants should bear the responsibility for aiding and abetting the violation of the Copyright Act through the judgment on the major issues as follows.

1. Whether web storage service users infringe on their property rights;

A. Infringement of the right of reproduction

"Uniform" under the Copyright Act means fixing a tangible object or remaking it into a tangible object by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means (Article 2 subparagraph 22).

Therefore, the Defendants’ respective web storage service sites (hereinafter the Defendants’ operation or operation of the web storage service sites collectively referred to as “each of the instant sites,” and the individual web storage service sites provide the names of the respective web sites. The act of storing or downloading film online contents files that the users did not obtain permission from the author’s property right holder to store or download them in the web store and store them in the private hard disc or web store. Thus, barring special circumstances, the act of storing them in the private hard disc or web store is a case where they are fixed on the hard disc of the computer, a tangible object, and thus infringing the right of reproduction, an author’s property right, barring special circumstances.

(b) Infringement of the right to transmit public transmission;

The term "public transmission" under the Copyright Act means transmitting works, stage performances, music records, broadcasts or database (hereinafter referred to as "works, etc.") by wireless or wire communications for the public to receive them or have access to them (Article 2 subparagraph 7), and the term "transmission" means providing works, etc. for the public to allow the public to have access to time and place individually selected by the members of the public from among the public transmission, including transmission made accordingly (Article 2 subparagraph 10).

Therefore, the act of users of each site of this case put the film online contents file which was not permitted to be used by the holder of author’s property right onto the web store, and setting it to make it possible for the public to download it to the public, constitutes a case of providing access to the time and place of individual choice by the members of the public, thereby infringing the transmission right, among the right of public transmission, of author’s property right.

2. Whether the operators of each site of this case are criminal liability

A. Whether a co-principal is established with users

(i)General legal principles concerning co-principals;

Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more co-offenders jointly commit a crime. For the establishment of a co-principal, a subjective element requires a fact of implementation of a crime through functional control by a co- doctor, which is an objective element, and the intent of co-processing is to move one’s own intent by using one another’s act in order to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent. In such a case, it is insufficient to accept the intention of co-processing with the awareness of another person’s crime and without restraint. However, in advance, there is no need for prior conspiracy to commit a crime plan, or there is a mutual agreement that each accomplice forms the elements of a crime or shares the actions in essence related to the elements of a crime. In addition, strict proof is not required to recognize such co-principal’s intention, but where the defendant denies the intention of co-processing, which is an subjective element, it is necessary to prove the fact through an indirect fact or circumstantial method that proves considerable relevance with the facts of a crime, and it is also necessary to reasonably observe and observe the situation of an indirect fact in light of the nature of things.

D. Determination as to the operation method of each site of this case

As seen below, comprehensively taking account of the actual usage status of each site of this case recognized by evidence of guilt, the Defendants’ perception and check details, and the limit of technical measures, etc., which are the operators of each site of this case, the Defendants, who are operators of each site of this case, frequently run a large number of film content files which users did not obtain permission to use from the author’s property right holder through each site of this case, and can be said to have sufficiently known and shown that other users frequently download the files.

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no clear evidence to deem that the Defendants, who are the operators of each site of this case, had an intent or purpose of unlawful copyright infringement at the time of the establishment of each site. ② Each site of this case, such as various kinds of online contents or obscene materials not authorized to use, can considerably be seen as lawful online contents in addition to illegal data and information, (However, it is difficult to specifically determine the number or size of unlawful contents and lawful contents, share, volume of the online contents that are relative to the online contents and legitimate contents, and the size of charges, etc.). ③ The online contents service provided by each site of this case, which were stored and shared online files in the storage space of the web site of this case, are likely to have been carried out by each online users without specific consent of each online contents or online contents, ④ The online contents and contents of each online contents, which are not authorized to use online contents, are likely to have been carried out by each of the users of this case.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendants, the operators of each site of this case, and the users who run illegal film online contents files, had an intent to jointly process that “act by sharing the essential elements of an infringement of author’s property right” among them, and there is no other evidence of guilt that can be acknowledged otherwise in the record.

【Court Decision】

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants and users, who are the operators of each site of this case, constitute joint principal offenders with respect to the infringement of users’ property rights.

B. Whether a site operator's sole principal offender is established

The prosecutor did not institute a prosecution to the effect that the operator of each site of this case is a principal offender of the infringement of author's property right. As seen earlier, this court denied the operator's joint principal offender establishment. Thus, the examination of whether the infringement of author's property right under Article 136 (1) of the Copyright Act is established in the case of infringement by means of reproduction, performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, and secondary copyrighted work preparation. As seen earlier, the defendants, the operator of each site of this case, as the operators of each site of this case, operated illegal film files on the site of this case, thereby directly infringing the author's property right. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence to prove that the defendants, as the operators of each site of this case, had the intent or purpose of illegal copyright infringement at the time of the establishment of each site of this case, and there is considerable amount of legitimate online contents in each site of this case, so that the defendants, who are operators of each site of this case, offered users of the site of this case to store and use online copyrighted contents as the same online copyrighted space, not inducing it.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants, who are the operators of each site of this case, constituted a single principal offender with respect to the infringement of users’ property rights.

C. Whether a website operator's aiding and abetting crime is established

(i)General legal principles concerning aiding and abetting;

Inasmuch as an act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to a direct or indirect act that facilitates the principal offender’s act while being aware of the fact that the principal offender is committing the crime, the principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes an element of the crime. However, inasmuch as such intent is in depth, if the principal offender denies it, it is bound to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the principal offender’s intent due to the nature of the object. What constitutes an indirect fact that is considerably relevant, there is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using the detailed observation or analysis power of the principal offender based on normal empirical rule. Moreover, the principal offender’s intention in aiding and abetting is not required to be aware of the details of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to recognize the principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender’s act of infringing the principal offender’s right of reproduction, including the act of aiding and abetting and abetting infringement of the principal offender’s right of reproduction, as well as the right of reproduction.

D. Determination as to the operation method of each site of this case

㈎ 이 사건 각 사이트의 현실적인 이용실태

As seen earlier, web storage service provides the function of providing online contents storage space on the web server along with the function of providing online contents storage space on the web server. Any part of the service users runs up or downloads online contents files such as motion pictures and music without obtaining permission for use from the holder of author’s property right through the web storage service. In the case of each site of this case, such utilization status is not different, and it is evident in light of the following circumstances.

① 피고인 5 주식회사에 업로드된 온라인콘텐츠 파일의 확장자명에 따른 파일 유형을 구분하였더니, 영화 파일에 자주 사용되는 avi, smi, wmv, vob 파일 등이 파일 개수면에서 상위를 차지하였을 뿐만 아니라, 그 용량면에서는 절대 다수를 차지하였다. 또한, ☆☆☆☆☆에 업로드된 온라인콘텐츠 파일의 확장자명에 따른 파일 유형을 구분하였더니, 영화 파일에 자주 사용되는 avi, smi, wmv 파일 등이 파일 개수면에서 상위를 차지하였다.

Although the number, etc. of files of illegal cinematographic works cannot be determined among the files verified by the expanded person as above, in light of other circumstances on the actual use status of each site of this case as seen below, there is no obstacle to deeming at least a large number of illegal movies or drama, etc. as files of cinematographic works.

② Most sites allow users to purchase cyber money in order to download online contents, and adopt the so-called Hague 3) method by giving incentives such as cyber money and cash payment for cyber activities.

그런데 예컨대, ☆☆☆☆☆의 경우, 이용자들 중 가장 많은 금액의 포인트 적립자인 전주용이 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠의 적어도 상당수는 국외 드라마이었고, 차순위 적립자인 공소외 6이 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠의 절대 다수는 국내 드라마 또는 텔레비전 오락프로그램이었으며, 차순위 적립자인 공소외 7이 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠의 절대 다수는 국외 드라마이었다. ♤♤♤♤♤의 경우도, 2008. 5. 4.부터 5. 7.까지 사이에 업로드 횟수 등이 가장 많았던 이용자들 중 1명인 아이디 ‘▨▨▨▨▨’을 사용하는 이용자가 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠의 절대 다수는 국내·외 드라마이었고, 아이디 ‘●●●●●●’를 사용하는 이용자가 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠의 상당수는 국내·외 드라마와 국내 텔레비전 오락프로그램이었다. ◈◈◈의 경우도, 이용자들 중 가장 많은 금액의 포인트 적립자인 공소외 8이 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠의 절대 다수는 국내·외 영화이었고, 차순위 적립자인 공소외 9이 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠의 절대 다수는 국내·외 드라마와 애니메이션이었다.

As such, among the users of the site, the absolute majority or at least a large number of cinematographic works engaged in online contents, which have been engaged in a large number of hedgings. In light of the form, content, etc. of the cinematographic work, it is evident that the HV had not been permitted to use the cinematographic work from the copyright holder of the cinematographic work.

③ 일부 사이트는 게시판형으로 운영되어 사이트 초기화면 내지 영화 등의 카테고리 초기화면에 이용자들이 업로드 한 온라인콘텐츠를 그대로 노출시키기도 하였는데, 예컨대, ♤♤♤♤♤의 경우, 2008. 4. 4. 02:13경 ♤♤공유의 영화 카테고리 초기화면에 ‘무방비도시’, ‘어거스트 러쉬’ 등의 국내·외 영화가 노출되어 있었고, ◈◈◈의 경우, 2008. 4. 4. 10:56경 영화 카테고리의 초기화면에 ‘댄 인 러브’, ‘뜨거운 것이 좋아’, ‘무방비도시’ 등의 국내·외 영화가 노출되어 있었고, ◐◐◐◐의 경우, 2008. 3. 29. 03:45경 자료찾기의 영화 카테고리 초기화면에 ‘무방비도시’, ‘식객’, ‘스텝업’, ‘세븐데이즈’ 등의 국내·외 영화가 노출되어 있었다.

또한, 일부 사이트는 카페(클럽)형으로 운영되면서, 초기화면 등에서 인기 카페(클럽)를 소개하였는데, 예컨대, ♤♤♤♤♤의 경우, 2008. 4. 4. 04:53경 클럽랭킹 화면에서 1위부터 17위까지 모두 ‘영화/비디오’, ‘TV/방송’, ‘만화/애니’를 카테고리로 하는 클럽들이 수위를 차지하고 있었고 주4) , 이중 1위 클럽인 ‘미리내클럽’의 초기화면에는 ‘스텝업’, ‘천일의 스캔들’, ‘댄인러브’, ‘워터호스’ 등의 국외 영화가 업로드되어 있었다. ☆☆☆☆☆의 경우도, 2008. 4. 6. 01:11경 카페랭킹 100위를 소개하는 화면에 ‘다운족 모임’ 클럽이 1위를 차지하고 있었는데, 2008. 4. 6. 12:33경 그 클럽에는 ‘뜨거운 것이 좋아’, ‘세븐 데이즈’, ‘원스 어폰 어 타임’ 등의 국내·외 영화가 업로드되어 있었다. ▽▽▽▽의 경우도, 2008. 4. 6. 02:42경 클럽 초기화면에 최신영화자료를 업로드 한다는 홍보문구가 포함된 ‘바람난 자료’가 소개되고 있었고, 클럽랭킹 5위 소개 화면에는 모두 ‘영화/연극’을 카테고리로 하는 ‘공유세상’, ‘N1’, ‘바람난 자료’, ‘날개달기’, ‘영화야 놀자’가 소개되고 있었는데, 이중 ‘바람난 자료’의 경우, 2008. 4. 6. 02:56경 ‘더 게임’, ‘무방비도시’, ‘식객’, ‘권순분 여사 납치 사건’, ‘용의주도 미스신’ 등의 국내 영화가 업로드되어 있었다. □□□□□의 경우도, 2008. 4. 6. 11:48경 디스크클럽 초기화면에 대용량 디스크클럽으로 소개된 클럽은 ‘만땅 공유세상’, ‘씨네무비’, ‘영사모-영화를 사랑하...’ 등이었는바, 이중 ‘만땅 공유세상’의 경우, 2008. 4. 6. 08:46경 ‘가면’, ‘용의주도 미스신’, ‘신부수업’, ‘뜨거운 것이 좋아’ 등 국내 영화가 업로드되어 있었고, ‘씨네무비’의 경우, 2008. 4. 6. 11:41경 ‘종려나무 숲’, ‘가족연애사’, ‘청연’, ‘신부수업’, ‘다세포소녀’ 등의 국내·외 영화가 업로드되어 있었다.

㈏ 사이트 운영자들의 인식·예견 내용

① Some of the Defendants, who are the operators of each site of this case, had already been aware of the infringement of the author’s property right of online contents posted on the site at the investigation stage.

For example, Defendant 3 entered the prosecution's office with a recommendation club operated by a low-income company, i.e., high-class club (g., club name): it was verified as a member, and it was possible to know that the category was formed so that the up-to-date film can be operated for business. Since it was opened on December 18, 2003 on the site 1st club, there was a "5,00 film image" in the last year, and the cumulative number of visitors was 1.6 million won, the prosecutor stated that "I know well about the "share Prize" which is a club with a cumulative number of visitors is 1.6 million won." Defendant 6 also stated in the prosecution that "In the way of viewing the film on the Internet, there was a lawful and lawful way to regard the money of several thousand won (including approximately 2.3,000 won) using a fee site, and that there was a considerable amount of 20 billion won file that is included in the web service (hereinafter referred to as "no. 200”).

피고인 9도 검찰에서 “가장 많은 부분을 차지하는 파일은 드라마 카테고리가 가장 사용빈도도 높고 차지하는 용량도 크며, 영화, 동영상이 그 다음으로 큰 비중을 차지합니다. 그 외에도 각종 강좌, 문서, 프로그램 파일 등이 저장되어 있습니다. 주로 자주 올라오는 영화파일은 미개봉 영화파일이나 최신영화파일이 많이 등록되는 것 같습니다. 한국영화와 동양영화 및 외국영화가 다양하게 웹하드에 업로드되고 있으며, 고전영화도 다수가 게시되어 있습니다.“라고 진술하였다 주7) . 피고인 11도 검찰에서 ”유료회원이 다운받는 동영상 파일 중 가장 많은 부분을 차지하는 것이 방송물, 그리고 영화, 성인영상물, 애니메이션이 가장 많고, 음란물은 계속 차단을 하여 그 양이 많지 않습니다. ◐◐◐◐에 업로더가 저장한 영화 파일은 정말로 다양한 영화 파일이 올라오는데, 그 중에는 고전에서부터 최신영화까지 다양하게 업로드가 됩니다. 또한, 한국영화뿐만 아니라, 외국영화도 다양하게 업로드되고 있습니다. 다만, 최신영화가 업로드가 되면 아무래도 다운로드 횟수가 증가하게 됩니다.“라고 진술하였다 주8) .

② Some of the Defendants, who are the operators of each site of this case, were subject to criminal punishment for an illegal online content, in particular, a crime of which obscene material was run on the site. Although the subject of punishment was not an infringement of author’s property right, the Defendants were sufficiently aware of the actual actual use status of the relevant site, such as the fact that illegal online content was run at least on the relevant site.

For example, on August 20, 2003, Defendant 3 was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act (Provision of Juvenile obscenity), for a violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Da6120), for a suspended sentence of one year (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Da6120), and for a violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Protection of Information (Nobscenity, etc.) for a violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2005Ma54). Defendant 7 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (Nobscenity, etc.) and a fine of KRW 308Da50845, Mar. 1, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Da57845, Sept. 30, 2005).

㈐ 기술적 조치의 한계성

The Defendants asserted that the Defendants are taking technical measures, such as the establishment of a gold-free language, registration of the sea value, and comparison, to prevent users from infringing their property rights in advance and ex post facto correction, etc.

However, in the case of the establishment of gold control, it is possible to easily circumvent by various means, such as inputting only a part of the search language by inserting the search language by adding a special letter or word to the gold language, or inputting only a part of the search language, using a gold control program(s) that can be easily searched and downloadd on the Internet portal site, etc., using a web link function or using a bulletin board of the website or car page(s). It seems that such a bypass has already been widely used.

In addition, in the case of registration and vision of the piracy value, there is a difference in the piracy value by changing the file expansion name, or by changing the part of the main part of the online contents, so only the use of illegal online contents with the same piracy value can be prevented, and therefore, it seems that the effectiveness as a preventive measure against the infringement of author's property rights is significantly deteriorated.

㈑ 소결론 : 방조범의 성립 긍정

1) The degree of awareness and awareness of the operator's infringement of author's property rights of each site of this case

First of all, the actual usage status of each site of this case and the recognition and opinion of the web operator. The defendants, who are the operators of each site of this case, have been in charge of web store service as developers or major workers in charge of each site from the beginning stage of the operation of each site (However, since the defendant 15 worked as major workers after the operation of the site, but the period of service is several years, it is not different from the defendants, who are other site operators). The main objects of copyright infringement, which are made through the web store service, were transferred to music and video works requiring more advanced technology, which require highly advanced technology, and these are deemed to have been transferred to Godo's technology and capital as the result of creative work, which is creative, i.e., protected work, as the result of the work, and the fact that one story has become clear in view of the nature of each film file and video work.

2) Helping and aiding the Defendants

A) Defendants’ liability for preventing infringement of author’s property right

Although the duty of general surveillance and search cannot be acknowledged to online service providers, the infringement of author's property rights is frequently committed on each site of this case, and the defendants, who are its operators, are sufficiently aware and shown. The service provided on each site of this case is a shared web storage service, and its main function and purpose are to transmit and share copyrighted works between different people. As such, in the so-called "online service of special type" with the main function and purpose of allowing transmission and sharing of copyrighted works, the risk of infringement of author's property rights is much higher than that of ordinary online service, and each site of this case is more likely to cause reproduction and transmission of copyrighted works, and it is possible to apply the effective technical control means as the service provider manages central servers. Thus, the operators of each site of this case have a high legal obligation to prevent infringement of author's property rights through the service.

B) Contents of aiding and abetting

However, each site of this case provides online contents display function on the basis of the title, capacity, date of registration, frequency of use, etc., in order to maximize its profits. In particular, the revenue model of the site except △ Group among the respective sites of this case provides the users with the storage space on the web server for a certain period of time, not the structure for which users receive the user fees, but the structure for which users download online contents files stored on the web store. In order to maximize their profits, it is the structure for users to collect the user fees at a fixed rate or in proportion to their file capacity, speed, etc. In order to maximize their profits, online contents that can be collected from the users by paying the user fees, online contents that can be collected from the public for example, such as movies, music files, etc., among each site of this case, are offered to the users with the result of massive infringement of author's property rights, excluding ○○, ○○, and ○○, and the result of accumulation of online contents.

As such, the Defendants, who are the operators of each site of this case, solicited and recommended the business of film files protected by author’s property rights, and adopted and implemented various operational methods so that users can easily find them, thereby facilitating the infringement of the right of reproduction and transmission as to each film work listed in the separate sheet of users.

3) Whether the Defendants perform their legal responsibilities

Defendants should share the risk of copyright infringement through online service with the copyright holder and online service provider. Thus, online service providers should be deemed to be responsible for the withdrawal of a measure to suspend transmission of the relevant online contents file without delay, or they should claim to the effect that users are not liable for the infringement of their property rights, inasmuch as they have properly carried out technical measures, etc. prescribed in Articles 102 and 104 of the Copyright Act.

However, in case where an online service provider intentionally aids and abets the infringement of the author’s property right by aiding and abetting and abetting the infringement of the user’s property right, it cannot be deemed that an online service provider’s criminal liability is exempted pursuant to Article 102 of the Copyright Act solely on the ground that it was ex post suspension and prevention measures were taken or such measures are technically impossible. Article 104 of the Copyright Act does not aim at limiting its liability to a special online service provider with the main purpose of transmitting works between other persons. Rather, in light of the purport of the Copyright Act’s amendment, which intended to strengthen the prevention of copyright infringement, with respect to a special online service provider of which the infringement of copyright is highly likely to occur relatively many, the right holder requests protection of the rights that meet the requirements prescribed in Article 104(1) of the Copyright Act and Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act, the duty to take measures prescribed in Article 46 of the same Enforcement Decree without a court’s trial, and if such measures are not taken, it is reasonable to additionally impose an aggravated obligation compared to the online service provider’s.

In addition, the following facts can be found and determined by evidence of conviction (i.e., ① search and download on online contents including motion pictures listed in the separate sheet within the site by the active efforts of each site of this case before and after the pertinent provisional disposition case or complaint case. ② The site of this case requires the best technical measures to prevent or block copyright infringement at the expected level in light of the current technological level, social norms, economic costs, etc. In light of the limitations on technological measures such as establishment of a gold rule and registration and comparison of the value of each site, the infringement on author’s property right by each site of this case takes place in the form of open and shared contents, and at least the Defendants were authorized to take measures such as deletion for the reason of illegality of online contents through the terms of each site of this case, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants had no authority to take measures such as infringement on the author’s property right of this case, even if such technical measures such as reduction of user’s property right, etc. were taken by taking account of the nature of the video or sound source(DA technology).

4) A statement of changes in indictment

Although the prosecutor did not prosecute the rest of the site except ○○ gambling, knives, knives, and Dog Dogl, among the respective sites of this case, it is merely an issue as to whether the content of the act that is subject to the identical judgment about the site that is indicted as a principal offender should be seen as a principal offender, and whether the crime of aiding and abetting was established through pleadings without regard to the indictment against some Defendants during the trial process. Therefore, it is difficult for the court to find that the site on which the principal offender was indicted as a principal offender would have a substantial disadvantage to the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense by recognizing it as a principal offender without changing the indictment.

Furthermore, considering the scope of damage suffered by copyright holders due to aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property rights of each site of this case, the period and frequency of the crime, and the infringement of author’s property rights by other web storage business entities that have not been prosecuted, if the indictment was not modified on the sole ground that the indictment was not modified on the site which was prosecuted as a principal offender, it would be remarkably contrary to justice and equity in light of the purpose of criminal procedure, which is to detect prompt substantial truth through appropriate procedures.

Therefore, this court recognizes the accused of the crime of aiding and abetting copyright violations ex officio with respect to the site that was not prosecuted as an aiding and abetting offender.

3. Judgment on other major issues

A. Scope of criminal liability for the operation of the website as an operator of the site;

The Defendants, a part of the site operators, did not know their duties or all business behaviors conducted on the site’s personal organization system, and did so to the purport that it is improper to impose criminal liability on them.

However, in the case of the Defendants, who are the operators of the remaining sites except Defendant 3, 13, and 15, the Defendants were in charge of the web store service from the start-up of the web store service, and thereafter the Defendants participated in the operation of the website. Although the Defendants did not specifically determine and instruct any one of the way of the operation of the website, it is difficult to view that the operating method is considerably out of the original web store service method of the website. Rather, this falls under the ordinary business category to induce the use of the website and expand profits, the Defendants are liable for aiding and abetting the facilitating infringement of author’s property rights.

In addition, in the case of Defendant 15, the Defendants, who are the operators of the site, are deemed to have the authority to make a leading judgment on the Doge Web Doe.

B. Whether Defendant 3 and 13 are criminal liability

Defendant 3 and 13 claim to the effect that Defendant 3 and 13 cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting the above infringement since they did not participate in the operation of the pertinent site any more when the infringement of author’s property right charged was committed.

그러나 아래의 유죄의 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 사정, 즉 피고인 3, 13 모두 ▽▽▽▽ 또는 ♡♡♡♡의 웹스토리지 서비스 개시단계부터 서비스 제공을 주도한 점, 피고인 3은 등기부상 대표자의 지위에서 물러난 이후에도 사실상 100%의 주식을 보유한 1인 주주로서, 다액의 보수를 지급받았고, 회사의 워크샵 등에 피고인 4와 함께, 또는 피고인 4 없이 혼자서 참석하였으며, 피고인 4가 회사 운영이나 발전방향 등에 관하여 수시로 피고인 3과 협의한 점, 피고인 13은 회사를 매각하였다고 주장하는 2007년 12월경 이후에도 고문이란 직책을 가지고 사이트의 저작권 관련 업무 등에 깊숙이 개입하였다고 보이는 점 등에 의하면, 피고인 3, 13도 해당 사이트의 운영방식으로 인하여 저작재산권 침해행위가 용이하게 된 데 대하여 방조범의 형사책임을 부담하여야 한다.

(c) Habitual requirements under Article 140 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act;

“Habituality” under Article 140(1) of the Copyright Act, which excludes complaints filed by the holder of author’s property right, from the requirement for prosecution, refers to the nature of the actor, which is a habit for repeatedly infringing copyright. In determining the existence of such habition, the previous criminal records, etc. are important data to determine whether the infringement of author’s property right has been committed, but where it is recognized as a habit for infringement of author’s property right in consideration of various circumstances, such as the frequency, means, methods, and motives of the crime even if such criminal records have not been committed, habituality should be recognized. Determination by the principal offender and the principal offender should be made. In the application of the joint penal provisions under Article 141 of the Copyright Act, a corporation’s habit cannot be presented. Thus, the determination of the requirements for prosecution of the

In light of the period during which the Defendants, the operators of each site of this case, operated the site and the size of 12) infringement on author's property rights, etc., it is deemed that, by operating the web storage service in a way that facilitates infringement on author's property rights, the repetition of the act was made from the nature of the act itself in the sense that the act is a business, and furthermore, it has the character of spreading the habitual nature as the nature of the actor.

Therefore, according to Article 140 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act, Defendants are subject to criminal liability of violation of the Copyright Act even without the complaint of the author's property right holder.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendants 1 and 2

A. Defendant 1

The Defendant was aware of the fact that various online contents traded through the web store site are obscene or motion pictures without permission for use of copyright, etc. However, from May 2002, the Defendant opened ○○ gambling site from around July 2002, and from July 2004, opened △△ gambling site to enable its members to download and download various online contents. Furthermore, the Defendant allowed its members to download and download various online contents free of charge at the transmission speed of 50KK. Meanwhile, in the case of the download of large-scale files, it takes an excessive time to download free of charge and it is difficult to secure its stability. The Defendant provided ○○○ gambling site with 100 points per 3MB (3 points) to the members who wish to do so, and the number of members of △△△△△△△△○’s members is 900,000 members.

Of the above sites, ○○ Park’s ○○○ is operated in the form of personal tables of its members, and based on 100G scamblings by providing its members with 100G scamblings, thereby enabling its members to download digital data for 30 days on the 30-day basis (e.g., fee extension). Of the above site, △△△ Park’s files on the website by linking them to the web site so that they can be downloaded. In addition, from the above site, △△△△ Park’s establishment of a club, the members made it possible for the members of the club to download various online contents as business and download the online contents in the club by means of scam reading, etc. (e.g., 1TB or more).

As such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement with the knowledge that online contents subject to author’s property rights are illegally distributed through its website, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author’s property rights, while, in the case of ○ ○○ Park, the film posters and the relevant film files were exposed to members knife so that they can be downloaded and downloaded. Moreover, the Defendant provided the function of classifying them by scams, such as “Korean film,” and provided the function of classifying them by scams, such as knife search and bulletin board, and △△△△ Park also provided the film-related “gold” related to a film with a high utilization level through a knife search and bulletin board so that the members can download the film files by readily finding them more than 20,00 and the illegal film files up to 2,500 through 9,000.

In addition, the Defendant made it possible for members to download film files from knife knife knife knife by using the function of knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

On the other hand, for the purpose of increasing profits through the increase of members who wish to obtain super-high speed download services, the Defendant: (a) placed a site advertisement on NAV, following Mphs, etc.; (b) held a fixed merchandise coupon discount sales event; and (c) induced and encourages the illegal file download and downloading of the users, such as gambling store; (c) put up gambling points; (d) put up gambling tickets; (e) give various benefits; (e) grant various benefits; and (e) hold a Round and downloading a certain set of points; and (e) encourage and encourage them to do so, such as inducing them to do so.

As can be seen, the Defendant recruited members through active public relations and offering various conveniences so that they can work online contents subject to protection of author’s property rights, and can get them to the members who want to download, thereby facilitating the infringement of author’s property rights by facilitating the following, thereby aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property rights for profit.

2008. 2. 25. 02:37경 성명불상자(아이디 : ▲▲▲▲▲)는 자신의 ◎◎박스에 피해자 ♠♠엔터테인먼트가 저작재산권을 갖고 있는 영화 ‘사랑’의 파일을 업로드 하는 등, 같은 달 24.부터 같은 달 25.까지 별지 범죄일람표 1 기재와 같이 ○○박스와 ▣▣박스 저장공간에 총 170회에 걸쳐 저작재산권 보호대상 영화 파일을 업로드 하고, 불특정 다수의 회원들로 하여금 영화 파일을 언제든지 쉽게 복제, 전송받을 수 있도록 함으로써, 저작재산권자의 복제권, 전송권을 침해하였다.

B. Defendant 2

Co-defendant 1, who is the employee of the defendant, assisted the defendant to violate the Copyright Act in relation to the defendant's business as described in A.

2. Defendants 3, 4, and 5

A. Defendant 3, 4

The Defendants knew that various online contents traded through the web storage site are obscene or motion pictures that were not permitted to use copyright, etc. Defendant 3 opened a web storage site so that members may be engaged in various online contents business, and Defendant 3 expressed that profits are divided between the members who operated the relevant online contents and the members who operated the relevant online contents in proportion to the rate of 9:1.

In addition, according to the orders of the defendant 3, the defendant 4 was appointed to the representative director of Co-defendant 5's corporation, and the defendant 3 was able to operate the web store site of the above method.

이에 피고인 3은 2002년 12월경부터 ◁◁◁◁◁ 및 ▽▽▽▽ 사이트를 순차적으로 개설, 운영하였고, 피고인 4는 그 회사 직원으로 근무하다 2005. 7. 14. 공동피고인 5 주식회사의 대표이사로 취임하여 회사 운영의 실무적인 부분을 담당하여 왔으며, 현재 ▽▽▽▽ 사이트는 서버 671대, 직원 35명을 두고 (인터넷 주소 1 생략)을 통해 웹스토리지 서비스인 ◇◇◇◇◇ 서비스를 제공하고 있으며, 회원수는 약 260만 명에 이른다.

위 사이트는 전용브라우저를 설치하고 회원에 가입하면 무제한의 온라인콘텐츠를 업로드 하여 15일간 무료로 보관할 수 있도록 하고(다운로드가 많을 경우 자동 연장), 온라인콘텐츠를 원하는 회원들이 전용 브라우저를 이용하여 이를 다운로드받을 수 있게 하거나, 회원이 개설한 클럽의 게시판에 웹링크되어 있는 온라인콘텐츠를 클릭하여 다운로드받을 수 있게 하는 한편, 다운로드시마다 회원들에게 4MB당 1원(1토토포인트) 상당을 과금하여 그 중 10%에 해당하는 수익을 업로더에게 지급하여, 그 적립금으로 피고인들이 운영하는 쇼핑몰인 ‘■■■’에서 물품을 구입할 수 있게 하고 나머지를 피고인들의 수익으로 취득하는 방식으로 운영되었다.

As such, the Defendants did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement with the knowledge that online contents subject to author's property rights are being distributed illegally through their sites, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author's property rights offered by members.

In addition, the Defendants offered free storage space to its members and posted motion picture files, etc. on the early screen of the site so that its members can easily want, so that they can easily get its members to download the motion picture files they want (the file search in the car page shall not be restricted) and then disclosed the business-related materials on the bulletin board of the exclusive hub, provide its members with file search function and file-friendly registration function, and receive downloadd only by linking the relevant materials on the club bulletin board of its members.

In addition, with the aim of enabling members to freely Round, increasing the number of Rounds, increasing the number of files storage space, returning cash to the Round by implementing the machine white system, etc., actively promoting the Round and Round of illegal film files, etc., and increasing profits through the increase of the number of members and the number of downloads, the Defendants advertised the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△ Site through the following, etc., and carried out active attracting members and public relations activities, such as promoting the Rober and the promotion of multi-level public relations marketing for members.

As such, the Defendants conspired to invite members through active exchange, public relations, and various conveniences so that they can download online contents subject to protection of author's property rights, and let them get off to the members who want to download, thereby facilitating the members in the name payment to carry out the acts of heading the author's property rights, thereby aiding and abetting the infringement of author's property rights for profit purposes as follows.

On February 18, 2008, a person who was named in the name of the deceased, up to February 18, 2008, downloaded the files of “the third love” in which Nonindicted Co. 10 had an author’s property right, etc., and up to February 20 of the same month from that time, up to that time, the film files subject to the protection of author’s property right were opened in a total of 402 times in the ▽▽▽▽△ storage space as shown in attached Table 2 of the Criminal Day, and made many and unspecified members easily reproduce and transmit film files at any time, thereby infringing the right of reproduction and transmission of the author’s property right.

B. Defendant 5 Company

Co-defendant 3 and 4, who is the representative or employee of the defendant, assisted the defendant to violate the Copyright Act in relation to the defendant's business as described in A.

3. Defendant 6

The Defendant was aware of the fact that various online contents traded through the web store site are obscene or motion pictures not permitted to use copyright, etc. The Defendant opened a web store site so that members may run various online contents online contents business, and used them to store them through central servers in order to divide profits from the rate of 9:1 with members who run the relevant online contents business and 9:1 with respect to the user fees paid each time other members receive download.

이에 피고인은 2007년 3월경 ♤♤♤♤♤ 사이트를 개설하여 현재 서버 89대(총용량 222.5TB)에 직원 9명으로 사이트를 운영하고 있으며, 사이트는 현재 약 192만 명 상당의 회원을 보유하고 있다.

피고인은 위 사이트를 통해 회원들이 클럽을 개설하면 무료로 기본 1TB(테라바이트)의 저장공간을 제공(무료로 용량증설가능)하고, 45일의 기본저장기간을 제공(유료 연장 가능)하여 온라인콘텐츠를 업로드 하도록 하고, 온라인콘텐츠를 원하는 회원들이 검색기능활용, 클럽가입, 유형별로 분류된 영화 등 항목을 클릭하거나, ‘♤♤공유’라는 게시판 열람 및 검색 등의 방법으로 자신이 원하는 온라인콘텐츠를 다운로드 받을 수 있도록 하는 한편, 다운로드시마다 회원들에게 5MB당 1원(5패킷) 상당을 과금하여, 그 중 10%에 해당하는 수익을 업로더에게 지급하고, 나머지를 피고인의 수익을 취득하는 방식으로 운영하였다.

As such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement despite being aware that online contents subject to author's property rights are illegally distributed through its website, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author's property rights.

또한, 피고인은 회원들에게 무료로 저장공간을 제공하고 회원들이 손쉽게 원하는 영화 파일을 찾을 수 있도록 파일 검색기능을 제공하고, 영화를 다운로드 받을 수 있는 전문 영화클럽 등을 손쉽게 찾을 수 있도록 초기화면에 ‘영화’, ‘음악’ 등의 제목으로 항목을 분류하여 대형 영화관련 클럽에 가입하게 유도하여 영화 파일을 다운로드 받을 수 있게 하였을 뿐만 아니라, ‘♤♤공유’(필터링 적용 안 됨)란에 업로더들이 공유로 지정한 파일을 게시판 형식으로 일괄적으로 게시하고 이를 클릭만 하면 바로 다운로드받을 수 있게 하였다.

Furthermore, the Defendant actively advertised the website on the website, such as the content of the “minimum free motion picture download” and “sharing of high-quality motion picture files,” etc. In addition, the Defendant promoted membership by granting monetary compensation to other members through the recommending authorization system, partnership system, etc., as well as by granting subsidies to a large number of clubs, and paying part of the fees paid by the downloads to the partnership when the members of the downloads receive downloads.

As can be seen, the Defendant recruited members through active exchange, public relations and provision of various conveniences so that they can play online contents subject to protection of author's property rights, and can get them to get them to downloaded members. As follows, the Defendant aided and abetted the infringement of author's property rights habitually for profit by facilitating the members in the name failure to carry out the head office of the author's property rights.

2008. 2. 16. 23:40경 성명불상자(아이디 : ◆◆◆◆)는 ♤♤♤♤♤ 사이트에 공소외 10 주식회사가 저작재산권을 갖고 있는 영화 ‘두번째 사랑’의 파일을 업로드 하는 등, 그 시경부터 같은 달 17.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 3 기재와 같이 ♤♤♤♤♤ 저장공간에 총 345회에 걸쳐 저작재산권 보호대상 영화 파일을 업로드 하고, 불특정 다수의 회원들로 하여금 영화 파일을 언제든지 쉽게 복제, 전송받을 수 있도록 함으로써, 저작재산권자의 복제권, 전송권을 침해하였다.

4. Defendants 7 and 8

A. Defendant 7

The Defendant was aware of the fact that various online contents traded through the web store site are obscene or motion pictures not permitted to use copyright, etc. The Defendant opened a web store site so that members may run various online contents online contents business, and used them to store them through central servers in order to divide profits from the rate of 9:1 with members who run the relevant online contents business and 9:1 with respect to the user fees paid each time other members receive download.

이에 피고인은 2003. 9. 8.경 ☆☆☆☆☆ 사이트를 개설하여 현재 서버 646대(총용량 1,008TB)를 설치하고 사이트를 운영하고 있으며, 사이트는 현재 약 210만 명의 회원을 보유하고 있다.

피고인은 위 사이트를 통해 회원들에게 무료로 300G의 저장공간을 제공하여 ☆☆☆☆☆ 전용브라우저를 이용하여 30일간 온라인콘텐츠를 업로드 하여 보관할 수 있도록 하고, 온라인콘텐츠를 원하는 회원들이 전용브라우저상의 검색기능을 활용하여 자신이 원하는 자료를 찾아 이를 다운로드 받을 수 있게 하였다. 한편, 회원들이 카페를 개설할 경우 추가로 300G의 공간을 무료로 제공(카페 활성도에 따라 용량 증설)하고, 이용자들이 자신이 원하는 카페에 가입하여 카페자료실에 있는 온라인콘텐츠 등을 다운로드 받을 수 있게 하고, 다운로더에게 3MB 당 1원(1포인트) 상당을 과금하여, 그 중 10%에 해당하는 수익을 업로더에게 지급하고, 나머지를 피고인의 수익을 취득하는 방식으로 운영하였다.

As such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement despite being aware that online contents subject to author's property rights are illegally distributed through its website, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author's property rights.

In addition, the defendant provided exclusive slaber with the right to file search, friendly registration, and download and download functions so that members can easily find film files that they want to easily obtain film files by easily downloading film files by going through file search functions or by providing specific users with a method of registration as friendly. The defendant posted film-related cameras on the initial screen of the site so that members can easily join the camera and easily download the film files they want to have.

나아가 피고인은 영화 파일 등을 다운로드받을 경우 다운로더들이 지급하는 요금의 10%에 해당하는 수익을 업로더들에게 지급하여 이를 피고인이 운영하는 쇼핑몰에서 물품을 구입할 수 있게 하거나, 오케이 캐시백에서 현금처럼 사용할 수 있도록 하는 방법으로 불법 영화 파일 등의 업로드를 적극 조장하였다. 그리고 회원가입수 증가 및 기존회원 관리 등을 위해, 네이버, 다음 등 대형 포털사이트에 ‘대용량저장공간서비스, 웹링크, 카페, 선택적 공유 다운로드속도 무제한’ 이라는 내용 등으로 사이트를 적극 광고하고, 에스케이텔레콤 등 이동통신사 및 제휴카드사를 통한 광고, 회원들에 대한 명절이벤트, 팡팡이벤트 및 제로옥션, 온세통신 등을 통한 이벤트 등을 개최하여 회원유치 활동을 벌이고, 카페 활성화를 위해 추가로 별도 이벤트를 개최하기도 하였다.

As can be seen, the Defendant recruited members through active exchange, public relations, and offering various conveniences so that they can download various online contents subject to protection of author’s property rights and can get them to get them to downloads, thereby facilitating the infringement of author’s property rights by a member in the name failure as follows, thereby aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property rights for profit.

2008. 2. 20. 16:20경 성명불상자(아이디 : ★★★★★★)는 ☆☆☆☆☆ 사이트에 공소외 11 주식회사가 저작재산권을 갖고 있는 영화 ‘아랑’의 파일을 업로드 하는 등, 별지 범죄일람표 4. 기재와 같이 ☆☆☆☆☆ 저장공간에 총 167회에 걸쳐 저작재산권 보호대상 영화 파일을 업로드 하고, 불특정 다수의 회원들로 하여금 영화 파일을 언제든지 쉽게 복제, 전송받을 수 있도록 함으로써, 저작재산권자의 복제권, 전송권을 침해하였다.

B. Defendant 8 Company

Co-defendant 7, who is the representative of the defendant, assisted the defendant to violate the Copyright Act in relation to the defendant's business as described in A.

5. Defendants 9 and 10

A. Defendant 9

피고인은 웹스토리지 사이트를 통해 거래되는 각종 온라인콘텐츠가 음란물이거나 저작권 이용 허락을 받지 않은 영화 등 불법적인 온라인콘텐츠라는 사실을 알고 있었다. 피고인은 웹스토리지 사이트를 개설하여 회원 중 일부를 판매자로 등록하고 그들로 하여금 각종 온라인콘텐츠를 업로드 할 수 있는 자격을 부여하는 한편, 다른 회원들이 판매자들이 올린 각종 온라인콘텐츠를 다운로드받을 때마다 지급한 사용료에 대해 판매자들과 일정 비율로 나누는 방법으로 수익을 올리기로 마음먹고, 2007. 1. 16.경 ◈◈◈ 사이트를 개설하였다.

The Defendant granted online contents sales authority to approximately 5% of the total members of the website through an examination of about 5% of the online contents. The Defendant provided online contents sales authority for a certain period (at least 30 days in the case of film files, which may be extended for a fee) to the 10TB, and stored online contents in a bulletin board while keeping them through central server, or had other members wishing to online contents download it through the seller’s personal blocks through the seller’s “blocks”, so that other members wishing to do so receive online contents downloading their desire through a bulletin board perusal or business line subscription. On the other hand, the Defendant provided profits equivalent to 10% or 25% of the total amount (at least 10% designation as one won per 10M) set by the seller of Multirode, provided the remainder of the seller’s acquisition to the seller, deducted the remainder of the points from 50% of the total amount of money deposited in cash, and paid 70% of the total amount of money deposited.

As such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement despite being aware that online contents subject to author's property rights are illegally distributed through its website, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author's property rights.

In addition, in order to provide free storage space and recruit sellers, the Defendant classified items such as “motion pictures”, “ cartoons”, “games”, and “sexs” so that members can easily wish to do so on the initial screen of the site, and managed online contents such as film files posted by the sellers by exposing them as they are on the bulletin board in order of the date they are registered on the bulletin board so that they can download them only by viewing them. Meanwhile, the Defendant allowed members to have the online contents they want by posting them on the initial screen, etc.

Furthermore, the Defendant actively advertised to attract its members on a large portal site, such as NAV, using the phrase “the maximum free download, unlimited download,” etc., and, when attracting a new member, placed an active advertisement to attract its members, such as providing a recommended person advertising system that pays 20% of the amount approved by the new member.

As can be seen, the Defendant recruited members through active exchange, public relations, and offering various conveniences so that they can download various online contents subject to protection of author’s property rights and can get them to get them to downloads, thereby facilitating the infringement of author’s property rights by a member in the name failure as follows, thereby aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property rights for profit.

2008. 2. 22.경 판매자인 성명불상자(아이디 : ▼▼▼▼)는 ◈◈◈ 사이트에 공소외 10 주식회사가 저작재산권을 갖고 있는 영화 ‘두번째 사랑’의 파일을 공간에 업로드 하는 등, 그 시경부터 같은 달 23.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 5 기재와 같이 ◈◈◈ 사이트 저장공간에 총 364회에 걸쳐 저작재산권 보호대상 영화 파일을 업로드 하고, 불특정 다수의 회원들로 하여금 영화 파일을 언제든지 쉽게 복제, 전송받을 수 있도록 함으로써, 저작재산권자의 복제권, 전송권을 침해하였다.

B. Defendant 10

Co-defendant 9, the representative of the defendant, assisted the defendant to violate the Copyright Act in relation to the defendant's business as described in A.

6. Defendants 11 and 12

A. Defendant 11

The Defendant was aware of the fact that various online contents traded through the web store site are obscene or motion pictures without permission for use of copyright, etc. The Defendant opened a web store site and registered some of its members as a seller, and allowed them to download various online contents. On the other hand, the Defendant raised profits by dividing the user fees paid by other members each time they download various online contents posted by other members, into sellers at a certain ratio.

이에 피고인은 2004년 7월경 ◐◐◐◐ 사이트를 개설하여 현재 30명의 직원을 두고 사이트를 운영하고 있으며, 사이트는 현재 약 150만 명의 회원을 보유하고 있다.

The Defendant granted a certain number of members the right to sell online contents through the above website through an examination so that it can be run freely and posted on the bulletin board by allowing them to run an online content business without charge, or by providing a storage space of 100Gs to operate an online channel, and allowing them to keep online contents for 90 days on a film file. In addition, the Defendant, while keeping them through a central server, allowed members who wish to receive online contents to download their desire through a bulletin board access or a line subscription. Meanwhile, the Defendant: (a) golded a charge set by a seller of the Multirode (at least 10MB), provided profits equivalent to 25% of them as business; (b) provided the remainder of the Defendant’s revenue to be acquired; and (c) deducted the remainder of the set-off points accumulated as business; and (d) paid the remainder of 50% of the deposit in cash.

As such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement despite being aware that online contents subject to author's property rights are illegally distributed through its website, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author's property rights.

In addition, the defendant provided free storage space to the users, and posted online contents posted by manufacturers on bulletin boards so that members can easily want to search film files, and classified them by item, and made the file search function to be imposed on the seller's personal block (one pen) so that he/she can download the film files that he/she wants without restriction.

Furthermore, for the purpose of increasing profit by increasing the number of members' membership, the Defendant advertised the contents of “the lowest film, drama, video, game download, high speed download,” or advertised the website to actively attract members by using a program that is capable of automatically advertising the website in knowledge search, etc., such as actively promoting (tentatively referred to as “stoveing”) the website. In addition, the Defendant ordered the members to pay more reserves to the operators who frequently post materials requested by the members and to post a file that the seller runs on the bulletin board by selling items.

As can be seen, the Defendant recruited members through active exchange, public relations, and offering various conveniences so that they can download various online contents subject to protection of author’s property rights and can get them to get them to downloads, thereby facilitating the infringement of author’s property rights by a member in the name failure as follows, thereby aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property rights for profit.

2008. 2. 23.경 성명불상자(아이디 : ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙)는 ◐◐◐◐ 사이트에 공소외 10 주식회사가 저작재산권을 갖고 있는 영화 ‘두번째 사랑’의 파일을 업로드 하는 등, 그 시경부터 같은 달 24.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 6 기재와 같이 ◐◐◐◐ 저장공간에 총 337회에 걸쳐 저작재산권 보호대상 영화파일을 업로드 하고, 불특정 다수의 회원들로 하여금 영화 파일을 언제든지 쉽게 복제, 전송받을 수 있도록 함으로써, 저작재산권자의 복제권, 전송권을 침해하였다.

B. Defendant 12 corporation

Co-defendant 11, who is the representative of the defendant, assisted the defendant to violate the Copyright Act in relation to the defendant's business as described in A.

7. Defendants 13 and 14 corporation

A. Defendant 13

The Defendant was aware of the fact that various online contents traded through the web store site are obscene or motion pictures not permitted to use copyright, etc. The Defendant opened a web store site so that members may run various online contents online contents business, and used them to store them through central servers in order to divide profits from the rate of 9:1 with members who run the relevant online contents business and 9:1 with respect to the user fees paid each time other members receive download.

이에 피고인은 2006년 10월경부터 ♡♡♡♡ 사이트를 개설하였는바, 위 사이트는 현재 약 220대의 서버에 20명의 직원을 두고 운영되고 있으며, 약 200만 명의 회원을 보유하고 있다.

The Defendant provided members with a storage space of 1TB (tetra) free of charge via the above website (to provide a store space free of charge to the maximum of 4TB due to a large number of number of downloads of file files) so that online contents can be opened up to 30 days by putting them up to 4TB through an exclusive Brer, and the members wishing to do online contents can search and download the files they want to use an exclusive Brer and receive them for 30 days. On the other hand, the Defendant limited the amount of 10% per 3MB (1Nco) to multi-user, paid profits equivalent to 10% of them to them, and operated the remainder in the way of obtaining profits from the Defendant.

As such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement despite being aware that online contents subject to author's property rights are illegally distributed through its website, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author's property rights.

In addition, the Defendant provided exclusive slaber with the file searching and downloading and downloading function so that he can easily find the film files that he wants, and made it possible to search the film files that he wants by using file searching function, etc. through exclusive slaber, or to easily download the film files that a certain user wants by way of registration of friendlyness, etc. without any restriction such as gold control, etc.

한편, 피고인은 회원이 올린 파일의 다운로드 회수가 증대될수록 회원등급을 올려 최고 4TB의 저장공간을 제공하는 한편, 다운로더에게는 다운로드를 많이 할수록 요금을 할인해주는 제도를 실시하고, 영화 파일 등을 다운로드받을 경우 다운로더들이 지급하는 요금의 10%에 해당하는 수익을 업로더들에게 지급한 후 적립된 포인트를 이용하여 피고인과 제휴한 다음(Daum) 쇼핑의 디엔샵과 포인트 뱅킹사이트 등을 통해 물품을 구입할 수 있도록 하거나, 포인트뱅킹 등을 통해 현금으로 환전할 수 있도록 하였으며, 회원가입수 증가를 통한 수익증대를 목적으로 네이버, 엠파스 등 대형 포털사이트에 ‘영화다운로드’, ‘동영상 다운로드’, ‘최신영화자료’라는 키워드를 내용으로 하는 적극적인 회원유치 광고를 하고, 다음쇼핑몰 등 인기 사이트에 배너광고를 게재하는 한편, 사이트 회원들이 다른 사이트나 블로그에 ♡♡♡♡ 사이트 광고를 게재하고 그 사실을 통지할 경우 보너스 코인을 지급하는 소위 ‘엔톡 이벤트’를 상시적으로 실시하고, 광고대행사를 통한 무료충전소를 운영하는 등, 적극적인 회원유치 및 홍보를 하였다.

As can be seen, the Defendant recruited members through active exchange, public relations, and offering various conveniences so that they can download various online contents subject to protection of author’s property rights and can get them to get them to downloads, thereby facilitating the infringement of author’s property rights by a member in the name failure as follows, thereby aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property rights for profit.

2008. 2. 21.경 성명불상자(아이디 : ◀◀◀◀◀)가 ♡♡♡♡에 공소외 10 주식회사가 저작재산권을 갖고 있는 영화 ‘두번째 사랑’의 파일을 업로드 하는 등, 그 시경부터 같은 달 22.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 7 기재와 같이 ♡♡♡♡ 저장공간에 총 308회에 걸쳐 저작재산권 보호대상 영화 파일을 업로드 하고, 불특정 다수의 회원들로 하여금 영화 파일을 언제든지 쉽게 복제, 전송받을 수 있도록 함으로써, 저작재산권자의 복제권, 전송권을 침해하였다.

B. Defendant 14 corporation

Co-defendant 13, who is the employee of the defendant, assisted the defendant to violate the Copyright Act in relation to the defendant's business as described in A.

8. Defendants 15 and 16 corporation

A. Defendant 15

피고인은 1992년 4월경 공동피고인 16 주식회사에 입사하여 커뮤니티 팀장, 빌링팀장, 마케팅총괄 팀장, □□□□□ 팀장 등을 거쳐 2003년경 ▤▤사업부문 본부장에 승진하여 현재까지 공동피고인 16 주식회사 ▤▤사업본부에 근무하면서 인터넷 포털사이트 ▤▤ 및 위 사이트의 웹스토리지 서비스 사이트인 □□□□□ 관련 업무를 처리하여 왔으며, □□□□□ 서비스는 2001년경 하이텔 사이트를 통해 서비스를 개시하여 2004. 7. 11.경 ▤▤ 사이트의 서비스가 시작되면서 이에 흡수되어 현재에 이르고 있다.

현재 ▤▤사이트는 가입자가 총 1,900만 명이며, □□□□□는 ▤▤ 사이트 회원 전체에게 무료로 제공하는 20MB의 저장공간을 보유하고 있는 1,900만 명의 회원으로 구성되어 있고, 특히 그 중 약 58,000명의 회원은 ▤▤ 사이트로부터 저장공간을 유료로 구매하여 사용하고 있다.

□□□□□는 회원들이 자신의 저장공간을 기초로 클럽을 개설하면 다른 회원들이 가입을 원하는 클럽에 자신의 저장공간을 기부하는 형식으로 클럽공간을 확장하고, 해당 클럽에 회원들이 온라인콘텐츠를 업로드 할 경우 같은 클럽 회원들이 ▤▤에서 제공하는 전용브라우저인 □□□□□ 검색기를 통해 폴더별로 구분된 온라인콘텐츠를 검색 또는 열람하여 이를 다운로드받을 수 있게 하는 한편, 다양한 온라인콘텐츠를 보유하고 있는 클럽들은 회원들에게 100M 내지 1G 이상의 저장공간을 기부할 것을 요청하고 있어, 회원들은 ▤▤ 사이트로부터 추가 저장공간을 구매하여야 하고, □□□□□는 이를 회원들에게 유료로 추가 저장공간을 판매하여 그 수익을 취득하는 방식으로 운영되고 있다.

또한, □□□□□는 ▤▤사이트 회원 1,900만 명에게 무료로 20MB를 제공한 관계로 누구나 ▤▤ 사이트의 회원으로 가입하면 □□□□□를 사용할 수 있어 별도의 회원확보가 필요하지 않을 정도로 기본 회원을 확보하고 있었고, 특히 초기화면에 각종 영화, 음악 등 관련 클럽 및 인기 클럽 등을 소개하여 회원들로 하여금 저장공간 추가 구입 및 웹스토리지 서비스 사용을 유인하였다.

As such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent infringement with knowledge that online contents subject to author's property rights are being distributed illegally through the Dol terms site, and neglected to protect various kinds of online contents subject to author's property rights that members run.

Furthermore, the Defendant provided club search function on the early screen of Dogsung for the purpose of increasing the profit from the sales of Dogsung, while, classified the clubs that can easily receive various online contents subject to copyright protection by item, such as “motion picture”, “music,” and “scam club,” into the initial screen. In addition, if he wishes to join the club, he/she can allow all online contents in the club to be perused and downloadd through the Dog Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Mag Ma, and by facilitating the infringement of copyright rights by easily exposing the files subject to copyright protection and facilitating the infringement of Rod and downloading, as follows, by facilitating the infringement of author’s property rights.

On February 14, 2008, at least 12:39, the non-member of the name-based files of “a motion picture that Non-indicted 12 corporation requested to satison saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton saton sat saton sat saton sat saton sat sat sat sat s

B. Defendant 16 corporation

Co-defendant 15, who is the defendant's employee, assisted the defendant to violate the Copyright Act in relation to the defendant's business as described in A.

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15;

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 13, 14, 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court), 15, 16, and 17 of the witness (the respective statements in each protocol of examination of witness)

1. Entry of the Seoul Central District Court Order 2008Kahap968 and each protocol of examination (statement);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect (including a substitute part) against the Defendants

1. Each part of the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 18, 19, and 20

1. 각 사이트 화면(피고인들의 웹스토리지 서비스 사이트, 포털 사이트 포함) 출력물, 각 수사보고(각 침해자료 목록 및 화면출력 자료 첨부/각 운영방식 요약/각 헤비업로더 자료 첨부/▶▶▶▶▶ 개설 관련 의견서 사본/각 광고내역 입수), 각 등기부등본의 각 기재

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendants: Article 136(1) of the Copyright Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (the addition of Article 30 of the Criminal Act to Defendants 3 and 4, each of the following provisions: Defendant 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13 of the Copyright Act; Defendant 15 shall be punished by imprisonment and fine in parallel with each other; and Defendant 15 shall be punished by fine)

○ Company 2, Defendant 5, Defendant 8, Defendant 10, Defendant 12, Defendant 14, and Defendant 16: Article 141 of the Copyright Act

1. Aid and mitigation;

○ Defendant 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

○ Company 2, Defendant 5, Defendant 8, Defendant 10, Defendant 12, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, and Defendant 16: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

○ Defendant 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The infringement of author's property rights, which was done by the Defendants through each web storage site, is serious enough to measure the frequency and scale of the infringement. Among them, there are various results of the survey, but according to the results of the survey conducted between November 6, 2007 and November 12, 2007, 47.3% of the persons subject to investigation were downloaded through the sharing site, and it is apparent even if the above part of the defendants' profits, which was obtained through the download of the illegal film files, are not considered as statistical data, etc.

Of course, if the purchase pattern of film visitors was rapidly changed to online download, only the appearance of the web mileage service cannot be caused. However, in the actual film purchase market, in the situation where the share of online download through the web mileage service is rapidly growing, the possibility of criticism for aiding and abetting copyright violations in the holding of the Defendants, which have obtained considerable profits through illegal business behavior, is very high.

While the Defendants or defense counsels dispute that the instant judgment is a punishment or crime for online services or web storage services themselves, this Court does not dump or dumpate the net function of online services or web storage services itself, but rather, it is more likely that the Defendants or defense counsels are punished by the Defendants’ unlawful act of operating online storage services by inducing and inducing the infringement of author’s property rights in some hedges while excluding the rights and interests of author’s property rights by taking advantage of the adverse effects accompanying the net function.

In the course of the trial of this case, most web storage companies, which were indicted, have made efforts to compensate for damages caused by king and to establish a future development collaboration model by mutual agreement with some film copyright holders. Such autonomous dispute resolution efforts are high regardless of the number and market share of copyright holders who participated in the agreement. However, despite the agreement, there are many difficulties to be resolved, such as whether to implement the agreement or to build a future collaboration model, so it is difficult for most defendants to sentence suspension of execution of the past's serious illegal behavior.

Accordingly, this Court imposes a fine on Defendant 1 in consideration of the operational behavior, profit model, profit-sharing with the web store business operator, effort to reach an agreement during the period, and the status of the company, etc., and the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and fine on Defendant 15, respectively. The sentence of imprisonment and fine on Defendant 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13 shall be imposed, while the sentence of imprisonment and fine shall be imposed on Defendant 15), and the sentence shall be imposed on Defendant corporation, respectively.

The primary facts charged against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 and the facts charged against Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, and Defendant 14 are as indicated in the separate facts charged, and there is no evidence of conviction as stated in the separate facts charged. As seen earlier, Defendant 1 and Defendant 14 should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judge Lee Jae-soo

1) However, it is a separate theory that whether the operator of each site of this case has the conditions or ability to verify the specific identification of users.

2) Therefore, on the basis of the fact that users cannot clearly understand and show when and what contents online contents are operated, and that online service providers are exempted from online service providers under the Copyright Act, the defense counsel’s assertion that, as a subjective element of criminal punishment for Internet copyright infringement service providers, do not have the unpaid intention alone and that there is a need for a conclusive intention is not accepted.

3) A person doing an act of downloading a large amount of online content files infringing author’s property rights.

4) However, in the case of “unborn club”, which is a first-class club, the category was designated as “ initial / friendship,” but its substance was a club sharing cinematographic works, such as motion pictures, as delineated below.

Note 5) Defendant 3’s second protocol of interrogation of Defendant 3 by prosecution is see 7 pages.

Note 6) Defendant 6’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 6 by prosecution

Note 7) See the suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 9 by the prosecution.

Note 8) Defendant 1’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 11 by the prosecution is see 14 pages.

In addition, Defendant 1 was not guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (obscenity, etc.) (Seoul Central District Court 2008 High Court 2008 High Court 5588), Defendant 1 was not guilty of the violation of the Framework Act on Telecommunications (Seoul Central District Court 2001 High Court 7032, 2002No8608, Supreme Court 2003Do80), Defendant 4 was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months in the appellate court, 2007No1831, which was sentenced for 2 years in suspension of execution (Seoul District Court 2009Do360), and Defendant 13 was sentenced to one trial in the appellate court as a violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (obscenity, etc.).

Note 10) However, there is no material to deem that the Defendants are involved in the development and distribution of the package program.

11) For example, for example, in the case of Magsung, the search and deletion of illegal film files is being carried out by securing adequate monitoring personnel after prosecution.

Note 12) In such a case, the aiding and abetting act on the infringement of author’s property right recognized as facts constituting an offense may be determined including aiding and abetting act on the infringement of author’s property right, recognized as evidence of conviction.

Note 13) This includes P2P services, a representative file sharing service, other than web storage sites.

Note 14) It is also a web storage business entity that has paid the full amount of compensation for damages by agreement until the preparation of the judgment document.

Note 15) From among the Defendants sentenced to punishment, those who actively participated in the agreement at the trial, are not bound by law by the effort to reach the agreement, but Defendant 3, from among the Defendants who did not reach the agreement, did not have legal restraint in consideration of their health conditions, etc., but Defendant 4 deposited 9.2% of the sales amount corresponding to the Defendants who have partially agreed upon (However, Defendant 3, 4 and 5 deposited 9.2% of the sales amount corresponding to the Defendants).