The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, which is a copyrighted work published as a curriculum book for the publication of this case, and the Defendant’s act of accepting it was justifiable under Article 28 of the Copyright Act, since it has the purpose of research and education.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 28 of the Copyright Act provides that “A work already made public may be quoted in conformity with fair practices within the reasonable scope for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc.” under Article 28 of the same Act, which is determined as to factual misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles

The issue of whether it is accepted in conformity with fair practices within the reasonable scope should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose of quotation, the nature of the work, the contents and quantity of the quoted work, the method and form that contains the quoted work, the general concept of readers, and whether the demand for original crops is replaced, etc. In this case, it shall not be necessarily recognized as a non-profit use, but it shall not be deemed as a use for education. However, the use of for-profit education purposes is considerably narrow compared to the use for non-profit educational purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do227, Nov. 25, 1997; 2005Do8981, Nov. 30, 2007). In full view of the following circumstances known by evidence duly investigated by the court below, the defendant’s act of citing the contents of published textbooks cannot be evaluated as a “fair practice within the scope of fair use” under Article 28 of the Copyright Act.

Therefore, in this regard, the defendant's assertion is rejected.