With the help of an assistant, the finished picture was sold to his work, and the innocence was finally confirmed to singer Cho Young-nam, who was passed to trial.

Supreme Court Justice (Judge Soon-il Kwon) said on the 25th that he was convicted of a conviction in Cho's appeal, which was accused of fraud.

From September 2011 to January 2015, Cho was handed over to the court for allegedly selling 21 pieces of light-painting works by 17 painters Song Mo, etc., to 17 people and receiving 150 million won.

The trial court sentenced Cho to two years of probation in ten months of imprisonment.

He saw Song, who participated in the work, as an'original writer', not Cho's assistant, and judged that Cho's'masterpiece of painting' was an act of deceiving buyers.

However, the appellate court overturned it and convicted it.

The idea that Cho's work, based on Hwatu, originated from Mr. Cho's original idea, and that the assistant writer is only a technical assistant.

The Supreme Court decided that it was difficult to see whether the work of art was completed with the assistance of a third party, which is necessary information for the buyer.

He accepted Cho's position that it is the practice of the art world to hire an assistant writer to complete a work.

The Tribunal ruled that "when judging whether or not to deceive in a work of art, there must be a judicial restraint principle that respects the opinions of experts, unless there is a dispute over whether it is forgery or copyright."

The judge's judgment seems to be about respecting the various opinions of the art world rather than applying the criminal law as a prestigious statement in the art trade.

In addition, the judges believed that the case was unrelated to the'fiction of spoofing' because buyers bought paintings that were recognized and distributed as'Jo's work'.

It was also difficult for buyers to conclude that Mr. Cho's work was mistaken for a'friendship' drawn by Mr. Cho himself.

I thought that the prosecution's appeal that'the copyright of an art work belongs to the master painter Song and cannot be seen as a copyright owner' is a violation of the'unlawful principle', which is not judged in addition to the indictment. .

The prosecution's appeal is not related to the facts of the prosecution because the prosecution charged the case with fraud rather than a violation of copyright law.

The court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, saying, "The prosecutors filed a complaint after seeing that this was a fraudulent act.

(Photo = Yonhap News)