beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant B guilty on the grounds that there is no proof of a crime against the facts charged against Defendant B and that the court below acquitted the Defendant
In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles on joint principals, or by violating the principle of trial-oriented and direct deliberation.
2. While examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding Defendant C’s grounds for appeal in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free conviction due to violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, the argument that “N” book is not a work protected under the Copyright Act and that the actual author consented to the addition of the Defendant to the official seal, and thus, it cannot be punished as a provision of Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act, is not a matter for which the Defendant asserts that it is grounds for appeal or the lower court’s decision is subject to adjudication ex officio, and thus, the appeal is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
B. Abdo’s ex officio examination is that the minimum creativity can be recognized in the expression of a book “N” or “N” book, which can be seen as a work protected under the Copyright Act.
In addition, even if a work has been made public by indicating a person other than one author as the author, the crime under Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act is established unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16359, Dec. 5, 2017). Thus, the judgment of the court below is above.