The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he was included in the “E” file, “E” as a copyrighted work of the copyright holder C”; and (b) the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case even though he did not exhibit or distribute to many unspecified persons, due to the file that he did not do so. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

In the crime of infringing on author’s property right as stipulated in Article 136(1) of the Copyright Act, the intentional content of the crime is sufficient if there is sufficient awareness of the fact that it infringes on author’s property right, and its recognition is not only conclusive but also conclusive but also it is so-called willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do6403, Dec. 23, 2005; 2006Do4334, Oct. 9, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, health class in this case; the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; namely, the Defendant installed the Internet P2P sharing program, “Neit” in a computer used by the Defendant; and the Defendant was downloaded “E” file in the police investigation.

Although it had different knowledge about the victim's novels, there was a novel "D" in the above file in which the defendant had confirmed the computer used by him.

“The statement to the purport that it is, the victim’s name was confirmed as the Defendant’s residence, and the Defendant received a file containing the novel from the Defendant in the trial by using the above sharing program, it is known that the above file is automatically downloaded and shared with other users using it.

In light of the statement, although the defendant stated, it is conclusive about copyright infringement.