The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) requests the photographer to take photographs so that the victim may be discriminated against other cities pictures, and requests the photographer to prepare and take photographs of a refinite city taking into account the kinds, arrangement, decoration, packaging, etc. of food. Each of the instant pictures constitutes a photographic work in which the photographer's identity and creativity are recognized.

Therefore, although the defendant's arbitrary use of each of the pictures of this case infringed the victim's copyright, the court below acquitted the defendant on the charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who manufactures and sells urban village, etc. with the trade name “E” in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City as an employee from “G” operated by the victim F from November 1, 201 to May 2013.

No person shall infringe upon author's property rights or other property rights protected pursuant to this Act by means of reproduction, performance, public reception, exhibition, distribution, lending, or preparation of a derivative work.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from June 2013 to October 2013, 2013, published 13 copies of urban village products photographs listed in the attached Table 1 on the Defendant’s screen (I) among the photographs produced by the victim by paying 3.5 million won to H in order to promote his product, without permission, among the photographs taken by the victim by requesting h to produce 3.5 million won in order to advertise his product, and published 95 copies of urban village products photographs listed in the attached Table 2 on the Defendant’s homepage (J) for advertising purposes.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed the infringement of the victim’s copyright.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the Copyright Act.