Requirements for copyrighted works subject to protection under the Copyright Act and whether a copyrighted work is protected as a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act even if the copyrighted work contains a bad morals or an unlawful part (affirmative)

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act defines works as “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions.” Article 7 defines works as “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions,” whereas Article 7 defines works that are not protected under the Constitution, Acts, treaties, orders, municipal ordinances and rules (Article 1), public notification, notifications, directives and other similar things (Article 2), court rulings, decisions, orders, adjudications, administrative appeals procedures, and other similar procedures (Article 3), compilations or translations of things (Article 1 through 3), which are produced by the State or local governments, and are merely transmitting facts (Article 4), and reports (Article 5). Therefore, even if a work is not protected under the Copyright Act but falls under any of the above-mentioned works, and specifically expresses ideas or emotions obtained by human mental efforts, and contains “original expressions”, the contents of the Copyright Act are not sufficient to protect the expression or ethics of the works, and even if the work contains any expression or ethics.

Article 2 Subparag. 1 and 7 of the Copyright Act, Article 136(1) (see current Article 136(1)1), and Article 140 Subparag. 1 of the former Copyright Act (Amended by Act No. 11110, Dec. 2, 2011);

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011No1544 decided July 27, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of an unreasonable sentencing as well as another ground for appeal, if the court below subsequently withdraws the ground for appeal other than unfair sentencing before the sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be viewed as the ground for appeal that there was an error of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles against the judgment of the court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9

According to the records, while appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as well as unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawal of all grounds for appeal other than unfair sentencing on July 8, 201 on the first day of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misunderstanding of facts due to the

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the Copyright Act defines works as “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act. As such, works not protected under Article 7, such as the Constitution, laws, treaties, orders, municipal ordinances and rules (No. 1), public notification, notification, direction, and other similar things (No. 2), court rulings, decisions, orders, and rulings, etc. by the State or local governments, or by administrative appeals procedures or other similar procedures (No. 3), and only the compilations or translations (No. 4) of those as provided under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of the same Article, which are produced by the State or local governments, and only the delivery of facts (No. 5). Therefore, even if the works are not protected under Article 7 of the same Act, they do not belong to the works listed above, but do not constitute “a creative expression or appraisal obtained by human mental efforts” under Article 90 of the same Act and do not include any ethical form or 90 of the same Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted all of the facts charged of this case on the premise that cinematographic works containing obscene contents can be protected as copyrighted works under the Copyright Act, and there is no error of law as

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

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)