All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court modified the facts charged in the instant case to delete “for-profit purposes” and accordingly ordered the public prosecutor to dismiss the prosecution, which resulted in a substantial disadvantage to the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense by arbitrarily recognizing the purpose of profit-making, which was not stated in the facts charged, and expanding punishment.

"Profit-making purpose" under the proviso of Article 140 (1) of the Copyright Act should be interpreted as "for the purpose of obtaining illegal profits by receiving direct payments through infringement of author's property right, etc.". The Defendants' act constitutes a crime subject to victim's complaint, and the victim revoked the complaint against the Defendants at the lower court.

Therefore, the lower court dismissed the Defendants’ prosecution, but rendered a substantive judgment that suspended the sentence of fine to the Defendants.

B. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the substance, the promotional video of this case does not constitute a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act, or the Defendants’ act constitutes an infringement of author’s property right as it constitutes a non-profit performance, broadcast or fair use of copyrighted work.

In addition, the Defendants did not have the intent to infringe the author’s property right.

C. The punishment of the lower court on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing [the suspended sentence (the fine of KRW 1 million for Defendant A, Defendant B, and each fine of KRW 2 million for Defendant C] is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the requirements for lawsuit, the prosecutor initially indicted the Defendants on the charge of infringing the victims’ property rights for profit-making purposes. However, the lower court changed the facts charged in the instant case to delete “for profit-making purposes” and accordingly, even though the prosecutor requested dismissal of prosecution, the purpose of the prosecution is merely the requirements for profit-making purposes and thus is free to prove.