logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.11 2019노502
저작권법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the part of copyright infringement against the victim B), the victim B’s complainant agent visited the company operated by the defendant and confirmed that the AutioCAD program (hereinafter “subject program”) is installed on the computer of this case, and since the above employee discovered a container with the subject program on the pictures on the computer screen of this case taken by the above employee, the defendant's installation and use of the subject program is recognized.

B. Judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing: 3 million won

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as well as the images of the witness G’s legal statement and photograph (based on the computer), the fact that the program was installed on the instant computer (the instant computer was replaced on November 2017, or according to the K’s statement, the program in the existing computer was moved to the next day on the instant computer, and thus, the distinction between the existing computer and the instant computer is not required) is sufficiently recognized.

However, just because the target program is installed, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant used the target program. With regard to whether the defendant installed the target program, the health room, the defendant denied that there is no room for installing the target program, and the computer in this case was used for public use with the K. The defendant asserts that the other employee used the target program before the K is employed. However, with respect to the installation of the F program charged with the K, the investigation was conducted on whether the target program is installed, but the investigation was not conducted on the establishment of the target program, and no investigation was conducted on the employees using the computer in this case before K.

If so, K or other employee who is not the defendant is subject to.

arrow