All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts, although Defendant A could have acknowledged the fact that he manufactured a sculpture similar to the stolen created by the victim and thereby infringed the victim’s copyright.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged 1) Defendant A started with the production of Victim E around April 2010 as the motive of the Victim E’s University, and continued with the production of a three-dimensional drawing of the G symbolic sculptures of “F” (hereinafter “G sculptures”) established around October 2010, Defendant A kept the drawing in the outside bottom of the Defendant.

On August 2012, the Defendant subscribed to the public offering of H symbol sculptures, which was part of the victim's creative work, in the design process of the design drawing of the above symbol, and then was elected after being elected.

Around that time, the Defendant: (a) designed and subscribed to a symbolic sculpture “J” (hereinafter “J”) that was a part of the administration angle of “F” (hereinafter “human form”), which was a part of the 302-dong Office B, Sincheon-gu I’s 302-dong I’s 605-dong I’s work, and then acquired approximately KRW 200 million of election from the Jeju City.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed another person's copyright for profit.

2) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (1) committed the above act in relation to the Defendant’s business at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

B. The lower court determined that Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act provides that a work shall be “a creative production belonging to the scope of literary science or art”, and it is necessary to be protected as a work under the aforementioned provision.