Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who opens and operates the Internet community site B by linking it with “C” D”.

On June 3, 2012, at around 14:37, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s residence in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 102 Dong 202, D’D’, “Ad'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd’d’d’d’d’d on the said website, so that many unspecified people could have access to the said website by reproducing without permission and downloading the victim’s copyrighted work, thereby infringing on the victim’s author’s property right by reproducing and transmitting it to the public without permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partial police officers of the accused;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to evidential materials for copyright infringement (investigative records No. 10 pages);

1. Article 136 (1) 1 of the Copyright Act and Article 136 (1) 1 of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that “locked UFO photograph” does not constitute a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act. However, according to the evidence of each ruling, the above photograph is deemed to have taken a specific object affected by light at a specific time at a certain time, and thus, it is determined that the photographer’s identity and creativity are recognized in the course of selecting the body, setting up the instrument, controlling the direction and quantity of light, setting the camera angle, setting the exiter, speed of the exhauster, and spreading the stack, etc. Therefore, it constitutes “works” as defined in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act.

(2) On December 23, 2010, the Defendant, who posted the above pictures, was registered only on June 8, 2012, which was after June 3, 2012, and thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be considered as a copyright infringement. However, the Defendant’s act is not considered as a copyright infringement.