(a) Whether a person who has obtained permission to manufacture items with a five-meter vision mark shall obtain a separate permission for modification under Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act in cases where he/she manufactures three-meter vision mark (affirmative);

(b) The case holding that the visual chart corresponds to a work under the Copyright Act, and another visual chart that substantially imitates the visual chart has infringed on author's property right;

A. Although the Defendant obtained permission to manufacture the visual chart items, the permission to manufacture is to conduct visual and visual visual tests using 5 meters in the distance from the visual chart and 500 Luxembourg in the direction of use. The 3m visual chart is for visual visual test at a distance of 3 meters, and is different from the use of 5m visual chart. Thus, in order for the Defendant to manufacture the visual chart at the above 3m visual range chart, the permission to change Article 26(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act must be obtained, and even if the 3m visual range chart is limited to the reduction of the 5m visual range chart for which the permission was granted, it is also true.

(b) The case holding that if the defendant practically imitates another person's visual chart corresponding to a work in the production of a visual chart, it cannot be viewed that it infringes on the author's property right of the same person and it is somewhat different from that of another person's visual chart

(a) Article 74 (1) 1 and Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 91No336 delivered on July 25, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. Violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act;

Those who intend to conduct manufacturing business of medical appliances shall obtain permission for manufacturing business by industry and permission for manufacturing individual items under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and in order to change the permitted matters of raw materials and medicine and their quantities, sex, manufacturing methods, directions, dosage, packaging units, storage methods, effective period, and standard testing methods, it is clear that permission for change should be obtained in light of the provisions of Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the provisions of Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

However, according to the records, although the defendant obtained permission to manufacture the visual chart items, the permission to manufacture is to conduct a visual test with 5 meters in the distance of the visual chart and 500 Luxembourg. The 3m visual chart of this case is for visual visual test at a distance of 3 meters, and it is different from 5 meters in the permission. Thus, in order to manufacture the visual chart at the above 3m visual chart, the defendant must obtain permission to change Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and even if the 3m visual chart reduces the visual chart of 5m with the permission, the same applies.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

The theory is that the above three-meter vision is manufactured as a sample for market research, and thus the crime shall not be established. However, as long as the person who conducts the business of manufacturing the vision chart manufactures it without permission, it is not a hindrance to the establishment of the crime of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act even if it is for market research. There is no reason to discuss it.

2. Violation of the Copyright Act;

Examining the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below by comparing it with the records, the defendant's property right in Hancheon, which is a copyrighted work, was infringed upon by substantially reproducing the vision of Hancheon, which is a copyrighted work, shall not be viewed differently from the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a little difference between the vision of Hancheon and the vision of Hancheon, which is somewhat different in terms of the production of the liquidation vision. This argument is without merit

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)