The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 137 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act provides that a person who makes a work public is subject to criminal punishment under the real name or second name of a person who is not the author.

The purpose of the above provision is to protect the credibility of the society in the name of the author as well as the real personal rights of the author, which are expressed as the author by a person other than the author on his own work against his own will and against his own will by a person other than the author.

Considering such legislative intent, the crime under the above provision is established as long as a work is made public by indicating a person who is not the author as the author, and the trust in the society is not damaged in light of the social norms.

Unless there are special circumstances under which such publication has been subject to the agreement of a person who is not the author and the actual author.

It is not different even if there is no difference.

In addition, publication under the Copyright Act refers to the publication of a work to the public by means of public performance, transmission to the public, display, or other means (Article 2 subparag. 25 of the Copyright Act). In light of the literal meaning of such publication and the legislative intent of Article 137(1)1 of the Copyright Act, there is a timely publication of a work that is subject to false representation of an author, in light of the language and meaning of such publication and the legislative intent of Article 1

Even if the establishment of a crime under the above provision does not affect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16031, Oct. 26, 2017). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the facts charged in the instant case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.