Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person working as a director in Defendant B, and Defendant B is a corporation engaged in cosmetic wholesale and retail business.

1. On June 29, 2018, Defendant A, at the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City building and the office B office located in 10th floor, in order to advertise “E” sold by Company B, Defendant A opened a television broadcast program “G (250 times)” which is a broadcast work of the victim company, without obtaining prior consent from the victim F, and put it on the company B, and then reproduced and displayed the broadcast screen of the victim company’s broadcast to allow many unspecified persons visiting it to view it, from that time to August 2018.

2. Defendant B, in relation to the Defendant’s business at the date, time, and place described in the foregoing paragraph (1), the Defendant’s employee A committed a violation as described in the foregoing paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. The police statement of F Co., Ltd.;

1. Application of the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing a complaint, a certified copy of the register, a business registration certificate, a closure photograph of each broadcasting screen, an I Blog photograph, a closure photograph of J products sale, and a copyright ownership certificate;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act; selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Articles 141 and 136(1)1 of the Copyright Act

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the publication of the broadcast screen of this case constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus, it does not constitute copyright infringement.

However, Article 35-3 of the Copyright Act does not conflict with the normal exploitation method of a work and does not unreasonably prejudice the author’s legitimate interest, and it is time to determine whether a work is available or not.