All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants did not request technical measures, such as the suspension of reproduction or transmission, by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts of the Defendants, or by misapprehending the copyright holder’s copyright holder; and (b) the Copier (hereinafter “victim”) did not request the suspension of reproduction or transmission, by meeting the legitimate formal requirements prescribed in Articles 103 and 104 of the Copyright Act; and (c) the relevant Enforcement Decree.

Nevertheless, the Defendants took the best possible measure.

Therefore, the defendant has no intention to commit the aiding and abetting copyright infringement.

The punishment of the lower court (the Defendants: each fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

The act of aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction or transmission protected by the Copyright Act of the relevant legal principles regarding the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles refers to any direct and indirect act that facilitates the infringement of the principal offender’s right of reproduction or transmission.

This includes not only aiding and abetting a principal offender's infringement of the right of reproduction or transmission but also predicting and facilitating the infringement of the future right of reproduction or transmission before commencing the act of infringing the right of reproduction or transmission.

In addition, it is sufficient that there is dolusent intent with regard to the act of infringing the right of reproduction or transmission executed by one principal offender, and there is no need to specifically recognize the time, place, object, etc. of the act of infringing the right of reproduction or transmission of the principal offender’s right of reproduction, and also there is no need to finally recognize who is the principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7681, Nov. 28, 2013). Article 102(1)3 (c) of the Copyright Act provides that “Where a online service provider has become aware of the infringement in fact or has become aware of the infringement through the demand for the suspension of reproduction or transmission under Article 103(1).”