The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The act of aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction protected by the Copyright Act means any direct and indirect act that facilitates the infringement of the right of reproduction by a principal offender;

This includes not only aiding and abetting a principal offender's infringement of the right of reproduction but also predicting and facilitating future infringement of the right of reproduction prior to commencement of infringement of the right of reproduction transmission.

In addition, it is sufficient that there is dolusent intention about infringement of the right of reproduction exercised by the principal offender, and there is no need to specifically recognize the date, place, object, etc. of the principal offender's infringement of the right of reproduction, and there is no need to clearly recognize who is the principal offender.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005; 2005Do872, Dec. 14, 2007). 2. The evidence duly adopted by the lower court reveals the following circumstances.

① The Defendants predicted to distribute cartoons, animation, video, film files, etc. without permission from the holder of author’s property rights through the exclusive program, etc. of L “L” and “I” sites (hereinafter “each site of this case”) as indicated in the lower judgment, but provided users of each site of this case with a file download, download, data search, etc., thereby gaining profits.

② According to the Defendants’ provision of services, some of the users of each site of this case engaged in the cartoon, animation, video, film files, etc. of this case as indicated in the list of crimes as indicated in the lower judgment’s holding, and allowed other users to download without permission of the owner of author’s property right.

③ On September 18, 2009, cartoons containing some of the victims of the instant case were related to the infringement of author’s property rights through the “I” website against Defendant D Co., Ltd.