Copyright Act | Analysis of a Supreme Court Judgment Holding That Punishment Is Not Permissible Absent Intent to Infringe Copyright

The defendants indicted on charges of violating the Copyright Act were an employee of an IT services company and an outsourced programmer.

The IT company to which they belonged (hereinafter "A") entered into a contract with B, a software developer, for about four years beginning in 2011, and built a system to monitor overseas securities markets.

This system was developed based on a program for which B was listed as the copyright holder.

Afterward, the contract between A and B was terminated. The problem began from this point.

This was because, at A's direction, its employees and others developed a new program using B's program.

Upon learning of these facts, B filed a criminal complaint alleging that A had infringed his copyright.

The determinations of the courts of first and second instance on whether the Copyright Act had been violated diverged.

First, the court of first instance found all of the defendants guilty of the charges.

It accordingly imposed a fine of 10 million won on A's employee and the outsourced programmer, and a fine of 5 million won on A, which was indicted together with them.

However, this guilty judgment was reversed on appeal.

The appellate court acquitted the defendants, finding that they appear to have lacked the intent to infringe copyright.

The court pointed out that, under the contract concluded between A and B, some of the copyright had been assigned to A, and that, in this process, no clear agreement had been reached regarding the scope of use of the program.

It added that A and its employees and others may have understood, without an accurate awareness, that they were permitted to use the program.

In short, the appellate court's position was that, because the defendants did not infringe B's author's economic rights with any improper intent, they should be found not guilty.

The Supreme Court's determination concerning the Copyright Act was the same as that of the appellate court.

The Supreme Court explained that the lower court had committed no error in violation of the rules of logic and experience, and that it had not misapprehended the legal principles regarding the intent required for the crime of violating the Copyright Act.

It accordingly held that the prosecutor's final appeal was dismissed.

In a case in which a defendant was brought to trial on charges of violating the Copyright Act, we analyzed the Supreme Court judgment holding that punishment is not permissible absent intent to infringe copyright.

As a variety of content and new technologies are being developed in many areas, interest in copyright has been growing.

In particular, as in this case, in the case of specialized technologies, their content and systems can be highly complex, so disputes over copyright often arise.

Because this is a field that requires specialized knowledge, anyone who comes under investigation on related charges should obtain the assistance of a defense team.

At Daeryun Law Firm LLP, attorneys who have handled a variety of copyright-related cases provide tailored assistance to clients.

If you have any inquiries regarding the Copyright Act, you are welcome to request a 🔗consultation with Daeryun Law Firm LLP at any time.