The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (1.5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio, and habitual crimes refer to the following crimes: if a person who commits an act that constitutes a basic constituent element is deemed to have the nature of an offender, i.e., habitual crimes, which are subject to aggravated punishment, if he/she is deemed to have the nature of an offender, such crime. Thus, even if a person habitually committed the same kind of crime repeatedly, unless there is a provision punishing habitual crimes as a separate criminal, each crime shall be punished as concurrent crimes, in principle, unless there is a provision punishing habitual crimes as a separate criminal.

Article 136(1) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 1110, Dec. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides for the crime of infringement on author’s property right in the main sentence of Article 140 as an offense subject to victim’s complaint. Article 140 Subparag. 1 of the proviso of Article 140 provides that a public prosecution may be instituted without filing a complaint in the event of habitually committing the crime. However, there is no provision that a person habitually commits a crime under Article 136(1) is subject to aggravated punishment.

Therefore, even if the crime of Article 136 (1) of the Copyright Act is committed several times due to the expression of habituality, it shall not be deemed as a concurrent crime in principle, and it shall not be deemed as a habitual crime committed for a single crime.

In addition, since the legal interests infringed upon each copyrighted work are different even if the copyright holder is the same, each copyrighted work constitutes separate crimes in principle. However, if the infringement of the same copyrighted work repeatedly takes place for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, it can be deemed that one crime is established by universality.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12131, May 10, 2012). However, the lower court is several.