209No1956 Violation of the Computer Programs Protection Act

1. A1 (Attending 61 Years and Females);

2. Stock companies:

Representative Director Al

Defendants

Kim Jong-hun

Attorney Park Ji-soo (National Election for the Defendant)

Busan District Court Decision 2009DaMa317 decided May 28, 2009

September 3, 2009

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The computer program of this case was established by the employees of the company of this case, and Defendant A1 did not have any knowledge as to how the program was reproduced without permission since most of the Defendant A1 was living in Seoul. In the case of Defendant A Co., Ltd., the Defendant was unreasonable to recognize Defendant guilty on the sole ground that the employees installed the computer program at will, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Even if the defendant A1 was found guilty against the defendant, considering the fact that the defendant A1 attempted to negotiate and agree with the complainants, the defendant A1 did not have any history of criminal punishment other than sentenced to a fine due to drunk driving, the fact that some of his employees retired because it was difficult to operate the corporation due to the decline of construction games, and the defendants were faced with economic difficulties, the sentencing of the court below (the fine of five million won each) against the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

1) Article 46 (1) 2 of the former Computer Programs Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9625 of Apr. 22, 2009) provides that "a person who knowingly acquires a reproduction of a program made by infringing a program copyright shall be punished for using it for business purposes, and Article 50 of the same Act provides that "a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of a corporation or an individual commits an offence under Article 46 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the same Article."

2) 원심이 적법하게 조사·채택한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, ① 피고인 A1은 2000년 10월경부터 현재까지 주식회사 그의 대표이사로 재직하고 있는 점, ② 주식회사 그의 직원들이 2003년경부터 2008. 10. 13.까지 저작권자들의 복제승낙 내지 사용허락을 얻지 아니하고 개인용 컴퓨터의 각 하드디스크 내에 원심 판시 기재와 같은 컴퓨터프로그램 총 47점을 복제하여 사용하고 있었던 점, ③ 피고인 A1은 검찰에서 이 사건 컴퓨터프로그램들은 '직원들이 필요하니까 직접 설치를 하여 사용하였고 그 후 저는 알게 되었지만 묵인을 하였는데 아마 그때가 2003년 컴퓨터를 점차 교체하면서부터 조금씩 필요에 따라 설치를 한 것 같습니다'라고 진술(수사기록 제17면)하고 있어, 피고인 A1은 주식회사 ▣의 대표이사로서 위 컴퓨터프로그램들이 저작권자들의 복제승낙 내지 사용허락을 받지 아니한 제품이라는 점과 직원들이 위 컴퓨터프로 그램들을 무단으로 복제하여 사용하고 있는 사실을 미필적으로나마 인식하고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 그 밖에 주식회사 ▣의 규모 및 직원 수, 피고인 A1의 주식회사 이에 대한 관여 정도 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 A1은 원심 판시 기재 일시·장소에서 원심 판시 기재와 같이 주식회사 그의 사무실에서 저작권자들의 복제승낙 내지 사용허락을 얻지 아니하고 개인용 컴퓨터의 하드디스크 내에 컴퓨터프로그램 저작물 총 47점을 각 복제하여 설치한 후 위 회사 직원들로 하여금 업무상 사용하게 한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 피고인 주식회사 그은 위 양벌규정에 따라 그 책임을 진다고 할 것이므로, 피고인들의 사실오인 내지 법리오해 주장은 이유 없다.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

On the other hand, the crime of this case is an act that infringes on the author's rights of computer program works and ultimately undermines the development of related industries and technology, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the damage of the copyright holder caused by the crime of this case seems to be not significant. The use period of the computer program of this case is long, the number of computer program used is not significant, and the circumstances of the crime of this case and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are shown in the records, such as the circumstances surrounding the crime of this case and the circumstances before and after the crime, are considered as the reasons for appeal. Thus, even if the defendants asserted as the reasons for appeal, the sentencing of the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable, and the defendants

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Presiding Judge, Judge Park Jung-chul

Judges Jong-ho

Judges Kim Gin-ju