The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is the work published “F” and “G”, and the Defendant cited it in conformity with the academic fair practices by expressing each week and reference documents to the extent justified for academic activities, such as education and research. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as infringing upon copyright in cases falling under Article 28 of the Copyright Act.

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the ground of ex officio determination, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the following facts stated in the indictment by specifying the quoted part among the facts charged in the instant case in the attached form, and the court permitted the changes, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the changed facts charged despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 28 of the Copyright Act provides that “A work already made public may be quoted for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc. in compliance with fair practices within the reasonable scope.”

In order to fall under this provision, the purpose of the quotation is not limited to news reports, criticism, education, and research. However, the “justifiable scope” of the quoted refers to the relation (i.e., the quoted work is the principal, and the cited work is the paper) in which the quoted work is used as evidence, incidental evidence, reference material, etc. in the form of expression of the quoted work and has an incidental nature of the quoted work, and further, whether the quoted work is admitted in conformity with a fair practice within the reasonable scope is the method and form that contains the purpose of the quotation, nature of the work, the cited contents and quantity, and the cited work.