Per Lundberg was prosecuted for violating the law on protection of geographical information.
The law is from 2016, and this was the first time it was tried in court.
In total, the indictment was about 20 films that he posted on his Youtube channel with 25 subscribers.
The Court of Appeal finds that Per Lundberg, who was previously acquitted by the district court, neither applied for nor received permission to distribute the films before he published them on the internet.
Since the Court of Appeal considers that the films required a so-called distribution permit from Lantmäteriet before they were published, he is convicted of 15 violations of the law on protection of geographical information.
- I understand that they go on the letter of the law instead of the intuition of the law.
The idea of protecting the total defense is reasonable, but my films have not damaged the total defense.
The purpose of the law is not to put private individuals there, says Per Lundberg.
Court of Appeal: Do not commit crimes
Per Lundberg has objected that he did not have intent to commit a crime because he did not know that a permit was required for the dissemination.
But the Court of Appeal considers that his experience in drone flying strongly suggests that he was aware that a permit was required for the spread.
- It is thus the deviation from the permit requirement and not whether any actual damage or risk of damage to the total defense has arisen that should primarily be decisive, the Court of Appeal writes in the judgment.
However, the Court of Appeal considers that four of the drone films and a film taken through the windows of an aircraft should be classified as minor crimes that are not punishable.
The Court of Appeal did not agree, a judge only wanted to convict the man for two of the films.
The penalty was set at 160 daily fines.
Per Lundberg says that he has received strong support from drone pilots from all over Sweden.
- I have been in contact with my lawyer and we will appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court, he says.