All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2018Do13696 Decided June 25, 2020 【Fraud】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] In a case where more than two people are involved in the production of copyrighted works, standards for determining who the copyright holder is In a case where a number of individuals are involved in the process of creating works of art, standards for a judicial review of the process and degree of engagement required to be recognized as an author, a person who contributed to the form of creative expression [2] Meaning of “defrauding by nonfeasance” as a constituent element of the crime of fraud and the scope in which the statutory duty to notify arises in such a case Where the burden of assertion and proof lies with regard to facts relating to the actuality of transactions, such as the details of a transaction on which the statutory duty to notify is based and the transaction practices (held: prosecutor) [3] In a case where: (a) the Defendant paid Painter A to paint his past collage work or instructed Painter A to express abstract ideas proffered by the Defendant in painting at discretion, later added a finishing touch to the painting conveyed to him, and inserted a signature; and (b) the Defendant was indicted on a charge of selling the paintings (works of art) to the victims and swindled money corresponding to the payment of the said paintings by exhibiting them as though he created the paintings himself, when in fact the said paintings were actually created by Painter A, etc., without notifying the victims of the way the paintings were created as above, the case affirming the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant based on the conclusion that it was difficult to readily conclude that the victims purchased the aforesaid paintings under the erroneous impression that the paintings were personally created by the Defendant |
|
