A. Whether an act of not indicating a book author's author's identity in an advertisement or an act of introducing only the other author's summary among co-owners violates Article 14 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 3916 of Dec. 31, 1986)

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of breach of trust due to incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principle

A. The purport of Articles 14 and 69 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 3916, Dec. 31, 1986) is that a person has the right to indicate the ownership of a copyright in a work. Thus, an act of failing to indicate the author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s author’s work or introducing only the other author’s summary among the co-authors cannot be deemed as an act in violation of Article 14 of the same Act.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of breach of trust due to incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principle

A. Articles 14 and 69 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 3916 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Go Jae-chul (for the defendant 1)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No131 delivered on November 27, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on the violation of the Copyright Act.

The judgment of the court below acknowledged that the defendant, etc. entered into a contract to publish the book "Child Art World" which was jointly created between the victim's know-how and the gambling book, and then published 2,000 copies of the first edition 2,00, before publishing and selling the first edition 2,00 copies, the defendant, etc. set up an advertisement at the central and a new newspaper to promote the above book-holder, and the central one-day advertising book was without the above book-holder's mark in the advertisement book, and introduced only the brief personal records in the new newspaper advertising book without the above book-holder's mark in the new one-day advertising book-to-day advertising book-to-date, and thereby impairing the reputation of the above profits.

According to Article 14 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 3916 of Dec. 31, 1986), an author has the right to assert that the author is the creator of a work regardless of his/her property right as to the work and even after the transfer of his/her right. Article 69 of the same Act provides that a person who has damaged the honor of the author in violation of Article 14 of the same Act shall be punished. This is because he/she has the right to indicate his/her ownership in a work, which is not a work but a work, and it cannot be deemed an act violating Article 14 of the Copyright Act that infringes on the author's right to assert that the author is his/her own creation. Thus, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 14 of the former Copyright Act and affected the judgment.

We examine the grounds of appeal on breach of trust.

The judgment of the court below was impossible to pay 9 million won to the above winners due to the failure of the above book's sale, and the above book's right of publication upon termination of the above publication contract shall be paid 3.3 million won with the plaintiff's first right on July 10 of the same year, and since the above book's right of publication was transferred to the above right's owner, the above book's right of publication should be kept well against the above book's duty to prevent the above publishing without permission by comparing the above book's printing paper or the case of the second publication without permission, although the above book's printing paper and the right of publication to the non-indicted 15 million won were sold to the above book's owner on the 17th of the same month, and the court below recognized that the above book's sale of the above book's 800 won and the above book's 15 million won had no loss to the above owner's property interest, and thus, the court below's decision that the above book's sale and disposal should not cause loss to the above defendant's property interest as an act of breach of trust.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)