온라인 웹하드 서비스의 공중송신권 침해와 공모공동정범 성립 여부
Violation of Public Transmission by Online Web-hard Service Provider and Co-conspirator
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recently, Online Web-hard(Web-storage) service providers were prosecuted for violation of public transmission in Copyright Act, and were indicted for Co-conspirator in Criminal Act. Usually online service providers have been responsible for their criminal act as assistance, but in this case court should judge the behavior of online service provider as principal or not. Therefore this case asks us to which extent would be regulated Online criminal acts. From the recent theories and court precedents, I think it is improper to deal with this case as matter of Co-conspirators. Because Co-conspirator is regarded as Co-principal in criminal law, so he or she must commits an offence or an accomplice actually or constructively present during commission of the offence and should permit or engage another to act for his or her benefit, in accordance with his or her direction and subject to his or her control. But in this case, Online Web-hard service providers did only assist the principals who violated other's copyrights through unlawful transmission, they did not take part in conspiracy and did not control another to upload unlawful digital contents. I think it is possible to deal with this case as matter of assistance of public transmission. Further, the exemption clause Article 102 and 104 of Copyright Act could be considered in deciding as assistance. And court may accept the exemption when Online Web-hard service providers have done all technical measures if possible at the request of copyright assertors.
Abstract
Recently, Online Web-hard(Web-storage) service providers were prosecuted for violation of public transmission in Copyright Act, and were indicted for Co-conspirator in Criminal Act. Usually online service providers have been responsible for their criminal act as assistance, but in this case court should judge the behavior of online service provider as principal or not. Therefore this case asks us to which extent would be regulated Online criminal acts. From the recent theories and court precedents, I think it is improper to deal with this case as matter of Co-conspirators. Because Co-conspirator is regarded as Co-principal in criminal law, so he or she must commits an offence or an accomplice actually or constructively present during commission of the offence and should permit or engage another to act for his or her benefit, in accordance with his or her direction and subject to his or her control. But in this case, Online Web-hard service providers did only assist the principals who violated other's copyrights through unlawful transmission, they did not take part in conspiracy and did not control another to upload unlawful digital contents. I think it is possible to deal with this case as matter of assistance of public transmission. Further, the exemption clause Article 102 and 104 of Copyright Act could be considered in deciding as assistance. And court may accept the exemption when Online Web-hard service providers have done all technical measures if possible at the request of copyright assertors.
참고문헌 (60)
- "대법원 2007. 12. 14. 선고 2005도872 판결", ~ (2007)
- "동아일보 2008. 6. 18.자 기사" (2008)[URL]
- "대법원 2006. 4. 28. 선고 2003도80 판결", ~ (2006)
- "대법원 1998. 9. 22. 선고 98도1832 판결", ~ (1998)
- "대법원 1999. 9. 17. 선고 99도2889 판결", ~ (1999)
- "대법원 2000. 4. 7. 선고 2000도576 판결", ~ (2000)
- "대법원 2001. 11. 9. 선고 2001도4792 판결", ~ (2001)
- "대법원 2003. 3. 28. 선고 2002도7477 판결", ~ (2003)
- "대법원 2004. 6. 24. 선고 2002도995 판결", ~ (2004)
- "대법원 2005. 3. 11. 선고 2002도5112 판결", ~ (2005)
- "대법원 2006. 12. 22. 선고 2006도1623 판결", ~ (2006)
- "대법원 2006. 8. 24. 선고 2006도3070 판결", ~ (2006)
- "前コンメ-タル刑法, 第二版 第5卷", pp.270~ (1999), 靑林書院
- 이창섭, "공모공동정범이론 유감(遺憾)", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.337~364 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- "대법원 1998. 3. 27. 선고 98도30 판결", ~ (1998)
- "대법원 1990. 6. 22. 선고 90도767 판결", ~ (1990)
- "대법원 1992. 8. 18. 선고 92도 1244 판결", ~ (1992)
- "대법원 1993. 4. 23. 선고 92도2628 판결", ~ (1993)
- "대법원 1996. 12. 23. 선고 96도1558 판결", ~ (1996)
- "대법원 1983. 3. 8. 선고 82도3248 판결", ~ (1983)
- "대법원 1988. 3. 22. 선고 87도2539 판결", ~ (1988)
- "대법원 1990. 9. 11. 선고 90도1639 판결", ~ (1990)
- "대법원 1993. 7. 27. 선고 93도1435 판결", ~ (1993)
- "대법원 1994. 3. 8. 선고 93도3154 판결", ~ (1994)
- "대법원 1994. 9. 9 선고 94도1831 판결", ~ (1994)
- "대법원 1995. 9. 5. 선고 95도1269 판결", ~ (1995)
- "대법원 1997. 10. 10. 선고 97도1720 판결", ~ (1997)
- "대법원 1988. 4. 12. 선고 87도2368 판결", ~ (1988)
- "대법원 1989. 6. 27. 선고 88도2381 판결", ~ (1989)
- "대법원 1993. 3. 23. 선고 92도3327 판결", ~ (1993)
- "대법원 1994. 10. 11. 선고 94도1832 판결", ~ (1994)
- 김종수, "공모공동정범, In 형사법강좌 II", pp.751~ (1984)
- 이용식, "공동정범의 실행의 착수와 공모공동정범", 형사판례연구, (8), pp.76~78 (2000)
- "대법원 1983. 3. 8. 선고 82도3248 판결", ~ (1983)
- "대법원 1983. 3 .8. 선고 82도2873 판결", ~ (1983)
- "대법원 1997. 10. 10. 선고 97도1720 판결", ~ (1997)
- "대법원 1998. 3. 27. 선고 98도30 판결", ~ (1998)
- "대법원 1998. 11. 24. 선고 98도2654 판결", ~ (1998)
- "대법원 2000. 11. 10. 선고 2000도3483 판결", ~ (2000)
- "대법원 2004. 6. 24. 선고 2002도995 판결", ~ (2004)
- 천진호, "형사법연구 20년을 통해서 본 공범론의 변화와 발전", 한국형사법학회 2008년 추계학술회의자료집, pp.11~
- "대법원 1998. 5. 21. 선고 98도321 판결", ~ (1998)
- "대법원 2007. 1. 16. 선고 2004도1632 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2006. 8. 25. 선고 2006도3631 판결", ~ (2006)
- 천진호, "‘공모’공동정범에 있어서 공모의 정범성", 형사판례연구, (9), pp.200~ (2001)
- "대법원 2006. 12 .22. 선고 2006도1623 판결", ~ (2006)
- "대법원 2008. 4. 10. 선고 2008도1274 판결", ~ (2008)
- "대법원 2004. 6. 24. 선고 2002도995 판결", ~ (2004)
- "서울중앙지법 2008. 8. 5. 선고 2008카합968 판결", ~ (2008)
- "대법원 2004. 6. 24. 선고 2002도995 판결", ~ (2004)
- "대법원 2007. 10. 26. 선고 2007도4702 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2007. 4. 27. 선고 2007도236 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2007. 4. 26. 선고 2007도428 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2007. 4. 26. 선고 2007도235 판결", ~ (2007)
- "서울고법 2007. 10. 10.자 2006라1245 결정", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 2004. 6. 24. 선고 2002도995 판결", ~ (2004)
- "대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2003도6056 판결", ~ (2005)
- "대법원 1977. 9. 28. 선고 76도4133 판결", ~ (1977)
- "대법원 2006. 4. 28. 선고 2003도4128 판결", ~ (2006)
- "서울고법 2007. 10. 10.자 2006라1245", ~ (2007)