A. Whether a violation of Article 99 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act may be deemed to have been committed even if the true author had been unaware of the true author, even though he/she knew that he/she is not the author (affirmative)

B. The case holding that an act of indicating a person who has engaged in simple operations, such as correction, on a work, constitutes the elements of the crime of “A”

A. Article 99 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act provides a penal provision for a person who makes a work public by indicating a person who is not the author as the author, so if he knows that the person is not the author, he/she shall be deemed to have the intention to constitute the above penal provision, and it shall not be deemed that he/she had no intention on the ground that he/she

B. The case holding that the act of indicating a person engaged in simple work, such as correction, on the work, constitutes the elements of the crime of “A”

Article 99 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No2140 delivered on July 28, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Examining the evidence of the first instance court admitted by the court below based on the records, we affirm the court below's decision that recognized the defendant's violation of the Copyright Act, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit

Article 99 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act, which is the penal provision applied to the defendant, provides a penal provision for a person who makes a work public by indicating a person other than the author as the author, so if the author of the cartoon book of this case knew that he is not 10 persons, such as a novel, he/she shall be deemed to have an intentional act in relation to the above penal provision, and if he/she knew that he/she is not 10 persons, he/she shall not be deemed to have committed

In addition, according to the records, the expression "the person" indicated on the above work appears to be the indication of the author of the compilation work as stipulated in Article 6 of the Copyright Act. If 10 persons, such as a novel, a novel, etc., are merely those engaged in simple operations, such as correction, they cannot be viewed as an compilation author. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same effect that the expression as the author of the compilation work satisfies the requirements for the act corresponding to the above penal provisions is justifiable, and there is no violation of law, such as the assertion of the lawsuit, or misapprehension of the legal principles. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.