[1] The subject of copyright protection

[2] The standard for determining whether a work has been illegally reproduced under Article 98 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act

[1] Under the Copyright Act, a work refers to the creative expression of ideas, ideas, or emotions obtained by a person's mental effort in the area of culture such as literature, science, or art, and therefore, the copyright is limited to the form of creative expression that specifically expresses ideas, etc. by verbal, text, sound, color, etc., and thus, the idea or its foundation, etc., which form the contents of expression, cannot be subject to copyright protection even if they have the originality and originality. In addition, even in the portion corresponding to the expression form, if creativity is not recognized because the identity of the author is not expressed to the extent that it is distinguished from other copyrighted works, it cannot be subject to copyright protection.

[2] The issue of unauthorized reproduction of a work, which is subject to criminal punishment under Article 98 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act, is determined by whether it constitutes the expression form of a work and it can be recognized that there is substantial similarity between them when compared only the creative part. In principle, similarity between ideas and their basic theories, etc., which are the expression contents, cannot affect them, and even if it falls under the expression form, there is no room to consider the part where creativity is not recognized.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act / [2] Article 98 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da6264 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2178), Supreme Court Order 97Ma30 delivered on September 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3374) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 79Do1482 delivered on December 28, 1979 (Gong1980, 12505), Supreme Court Decision 93Da3073, 3080 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2002), Supreme Court Decision 97Do227 delivered on November 25, 197 (Gong198Sang, 198) / [300 delivered on September 13, 199) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 198Da131939 delivered on June 13, 1993

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-il

Seoul District Court Decision 97No5808 delivered on December 2, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Under the Copyright Act, a work refers to the creative expression of ideas, ideas, or emotions obtained by a person's mental effort in the area of culture such as literature, science, or art. Accordingly, the copyright is limited to the form of creative expression that specifically expresses ideas, etc. through speech, text, sound, color, etc., and thus, the idea or its basic theory, etc. which has become the contents of expression cannot be subject to copyright protection even if it has the originality and originality of a novel (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da3073, 3080, Jun. 8, 1993; 97Do227, Nov. 25, 1997); and where the originality of an author is not recognized because it does not appear to be distinguishable from other copyrighted works, it cannot be subject to copyright protection.

Therefore, the issue of unauthorized reproduction of a work, which is subject to criminal punishment under Article 98 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act, is determined by whether it constitutes the expression form of a work and it can be recognized that there is a substantial similarity between them (see Supreme Court Order 97Ma330, Sept. 29, 1997). Thus, in principle, similarity in ideas or their foundation, etc., which forms the expression contents, cannot have any influence on them, and even if it falls under the expression form, there is no room to consider the part where creativity is not recognized.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below on the premise of this legal principle, it cannot be viewed as an unauthorized reproduction which infringes on copyright even if the defendant printed and sold the "LLLLLLL Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis" (hereinafter referred to as the "LL Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis") under the educational theory such as Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis Epis. In addition, it cannot be viewed as a creative nature that is protected by copyright as to the basic contents of Episians Epis' Epis' Epis as stated in the facts charged of this case, and there is no illegality in the judgment of the court below as to the similarity between the defendant and Epis' Epis.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)