The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the charge of this case committed an act in violation of the Copyright Act by the Defendant’s display of the work of this case on the “data creation”, “data reading”, and “t disc”. Thus, compared to the criminal facts in violation of the Copyright Act for which a summary order became final and conclusive, the Internet site which operated the work is different. Therefore, each Internet site should constitute a separate crime of violation of the Copyright Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that acquitted the judgment of acquittal by deeming that each of the Internet sites constitutes a single crime of violation of the Copyright

2. Determination

A. The infringement of author’s property right is one of the legal interests infringed upon each work even if the copyright holder is the same, so the infringement of each work constitutes, in principle, separate crimes.

However, if the infringement of a single and continuous criminal’s following work has been committed repeatedly for a certain period, one crime may be deemed to have been established by universal title.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do12131 Decided May 10, 2012). B.

Judgment

On March 25, 2013, the records of the instant summary order issued by the Daegu District Court a summary order (2013 high-level 3371) as a violation of the Copyright Act. The Defendant withdrawn a request for formal trial on April 15, 2013, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it is, and the summary of the criminal facts of the said summary order was infringed on the victim’s copyright by putting the same work on the “bit disc,” which is the Internet site of the web-line method, at the same time and place as the facts charged of the instant case, at the same time and place as the same time as the facts charged of the instant summary order, and at the same time and place as the date and method of the crime are identical.