When Defendant 8 and 9 fail to pay each of the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

However, for the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be ordered to provide community service for 160 hours, including nature protection activities, welfare facilities, group volunteer activities, service activities of public facilities, etc.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines against Defendant 8 and 9.

Of the facts charged in this case against Defendant 5, 6, 7, and 1, the facts charged in relation to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. and the interference with the business of computer, etc. due to the attack on the homepage of the competitor around

Defendant 1 is the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2, the Internet fireworks Delivery Company, and Defendant 2 is the representative of Nonindicted Co. 4, the Internet Advertising Agency, and Defendant 4 is the representative of Nonindicted Co. 1, the Internet Advertising Agency, and Defendant 3 is the head of the new technology business of Nonindicted Co. 1, and Defendant 8 and 9 are the computer program producers.

2. Crimes related to spreading malicious programs;

A. Defendant 4, 3, 8, 9

Defendant 4 as the representative of Nonindicted Company 1 and Defendant 3, the director of the new technology business division, paid 7 million won to Defendant 8 and 9, the program producer, around May 2007. Defendant 4 searched a specific search language from NAV, etc., in a remote state where the user did not recognize during the computer operation, and requested the production of a malicious program, “ex eb.ex e,” which performs the function of searching specific links on the screen, and the function of visiting specific URL in turn, etc. Defendant 8 and 9, who was aware of the fact that the above malicious program was illegally distributed to another’s computer from around 007 to October 2, 2008, Defendant 4, without obtaining the user’s consent from 007 to 100, expressed that the above program was installed on the online site’s “ex eb.e., without the user’s free consent., the aforementioned program.”

As a result, Defendant 4, 8, 9, and 3 conspiredd on the information and communications network used by computer users of the above 50,000 computers without access authority or beyond permitted access authority, and delivered or disseminated malicious programs that could damage, destroy, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of the above 50,00 computer users of the portal sites, including the 50,00 computers or the Raber, without justifiable grounds.

B. Defendant 2

In order to conduct the work of creating search language completed by the search language related to the search language or the automatic search language completion function, from May 2003 to March 2004, the Defendant installed a 10 won per unit of installation to a large website or Internet camera operator from around 2003 to around 300,000 computers of the website or the car page visitors, and installed the Defendant’s advertisement pop-up operation program at approximately 300,000 computers. Around June 2005, the Defendant did not remove the Defendant’s advertisement pop-up operation program at the time without the consent of the user at approximately 2,00,00 computers where the “dwawa” program at the time was not removed.

Accordingly, around May 2006, the Defendants delivered or disseminated programs that could damage, destroy, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of the above 2,00 computers or NAVV computer information and communications systems, data, programs, etc. without any justifiable reason.

3. Related crimes, such as automatic completion fishing generation.

A. Defendant 1

The defendant, among the search terms completed by the relation search terms of search terms with poor competition or by the automatic search function, intended to create related search terms and automatic completion terms in order to maximize advertising effects by making an advertisement at a low price on the screen showing the relevant search terms, etc. in a visual order.

Thus, from January 2006 to June 2006, the Defendant voluntarily used a program to manipulate the relevant search language related to the fireworks delivery as if one minute was searched once per minute from the relevant search language related to the fireworks delivery, and carried out the work of “the creation of smoke search fish” or “the automatic completion of search” related to Nonindicted Co. 2.

After that, for about one year and six months from July 2006 to December 2007, the Defendant requested co-defendant 4 to create or search and complete automatic search using the portal site, such as NAV, such as “Lina,” “Lina,” “Lina,” “Lina,” “Lina,” “Lina,” “Lina,” “Lina,” etc., related to the fireworks delivery industry. Co-defendant 4, from around July 2006 to around September 2007, requested Co-defendant 4 operated by Co-defendant 2, and, from around October 2007 to around December 207, Nonindicted Co-defendant 1 installed approximately 30,00 automatic programs developed by the Company, and then increased the search and completion of the program by way of automatic search or seizure of the program, as if it were carried out in relation to the program in question.

As a result, from January 2006 to June 2006, the Defendant alone caused trouble to the information and communications network by sending a large amount of signals or data for the purpose of hindering the stable operation of the information and communications network of portal sites, such as NAber, or ordering the processing of unlawful orders, etc. At the same time, the Defendant interfered with the duties of search management services, etc. of Nonindicted Company 12, which is a NAV operator, by entering false information or improper orders into computers and other information processing devices, or causing trouble to information processing by other means, and in collusion with Co-Defendant 4 from July 2006 to December 207, 2007, in order to install malicious programs in excess of the access authority or permitted access authority without justifiable grounds. The Defendant sent or disseminated programs, which are likely to damage, destroy, alter, or forge the above others’ information and communications systems, data, programs, etc., or interfere with the operation of the information and communications network, which caused interference with the operation of Nonindicted Party 1’s computer or other unlawful information processing devices, etc.

B. Defendant 2

피고인은 2006. 5. 22.경 ‘☆☆☆☆☆’라는 인터넷 꽃배달 업체로부터 금품을 받은 후, 수십 대의 전용 PC에 수십 회선의 ADSL 전용회선을 설치하여 자동으로 IP를 변환하는 방법으로 ‘네이버’의 ‘꽃배달’ 검색어와 관련된 불상의 검색어를 검색한 것처럼 조작하여 ‘네이버’에 ‘꽃배달’ 검색어와 관련된 ‘웹사이트 순위’ 상향 조작, ‘연관검색어’ 생성, ‘자동완성어’ 생성을 한 후 약 1개월간 그 순위가 유지되도록 해주었다.

From May 22, 2006 to February 2, 2008, the Defendant used the above ADR. From February 2008 to June 2008, the Defendant used the so-called “PVN” program from February 2, 2008 to June 2, 2008, and received the request from 422 companies in total as shown in the attached list 2, and performed the work of raising the web site priority of the search language related to the relevant company, creating the “stamper search language,” and creating the “Automatic terms.”

As a result, the Defendant caused trouble to an information and communications network by sending a large amount of signals or data for the purpose of hindering the stable operation of the information and communications network of portal sites, or ordering the processing of unlawful orders, etc., and at the same time, caused trouble to information processing by inputting a false information or improper order into the information processing device, such as computer, etc., or causing trouble to information processing by other means, thereby interfering with the duties of Nonindicted 12, a NAV operator

C. Defendant 4, 3

From October 13, 2006 to August 29, 2008, the Defendants: (a) requested co-defendant 2 to engage in the creation and priority of “ex search terms” related to the search terms of “ex eb.e.,” and (b) applied to “ex eb.e.,” and applied to co-defendant 2 for the creation and distribution of the drug program of “ex eb.e.,” before developing and distributing the program itself from around October 2007 to around August 29, 2008, by using the malicious program of “ex eb.e., ex e.,” which was developed and circulated in itself as set forth in the foregoing 2-A by using the malicious program of “ex eb.e., the search order” and “ex e.e., ex e.,” and “ex e.e., ex e.,” and “ex eb.” related to the search order at least 301,300,57.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to obstruct the information and communications network by sending large amounts of signals or data for the purpose of hindering the stable operation of the information and communications network of portal sites, or ordering the processing of unlawful orders, etc., and at the same time, the Defendants interfered with the search control services, etc. of Nonindicted Company 12, a NAV operator, by entering false information or improper orders in the information processing device, such as computers, or by causing interference with information processing by any other means.

4. Crimes related to illegal character advertising by competitors' sponsor links.

A. Defendant 1, 4

Defendant 1: (a) around December 2007, when the Internet fireworks delivery company’s competition between online fireworks delivery companies is overfluenced, the search advertisement of the “sphone link” of portal site server’s “sphone link” is shown on the screen in the order of the unit advertising cost per character; (b) in accordance with the frequency of the computer users’ character, the advertisement is deducted from the advertising cost deposited in the non-indicted 3 limited company that the advertiser entered into a contract with NAV; and (c) when the pre-paid advertising cost is overfluent, if the pre-paid advertising cost is overfluent, the advertiser’s bid at a very low level to pay advertising cost; and (d) the advertiser’s bid at a very low level to make the advertising cost deposited by other competitors to be searched on the screen; and (e) the Internet company’s request to the representative of the above non-indicted 4 company to deny his request to the representative of the company.

Accordingly, Defendant 4 distributed the malicious program called “ex eb.ex” in advance to a 50,00 computers, and, when entering a certain order from around 10:0 on December 15, 2007 to around 11:59, published an advertisement of a competitor company from around 10:00 to around 3,800 of the unit price of the ○○○○○○○○○’s competitor company, a competitor company, on about 215 offlines from around that time to February 19, 208, Defendant 4 denied the advertisement of the 200○○○, △△△△△△△△△, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 26) as shown in attached Table 1-1 (excluding Nos. 20, 20, 23, 25, 26).

As a result, Defendant 1 and 4 conspiredd with the information processing device such as computer, etc. to process data by entering false information or improper order, or inputting or changing information without authority, thereby allowing the victim ○○○○○, △△△△△△△, and Nonindicted Co. 9 to pay advertising expenses equivalent to KRW 38,385,793 to Nonindicted Co. 3, an advertising agency, which is an advertising agency, and allowing the said Nonindicted Co. 3 to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount, and thereby hindering the said Nonindicted Co. 3’s ○○○○, △△△△△△△△△, by causing interference with the information processing.

B. Defendant 1, 3

At around March 2008, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 3, the director of the above Nonindicted Company 1’s new technology business division, to pay for the consideration, and to make the competitor’s NAV sponsor link's advertisement to be denied.

이에 따라 피고인 3은 위 ‘exeb.exe’라는 악성 프로그램을 이용하는 방법으로 2008. 3. 18. 16:00경부터 16:50경까지 경쟁업체인 △△△△△의 클릭당 단가 3,787원인 네이버 ‘스폰서링크’ 광고를 약 3,787회 부정클릭한 것을 비롯하여 그 무렵부터 2008. 5. 8.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 1-2 기재와 같이 총 56차례에 걸쳐 △△△△△, ◁◁◁◁◁, ○○○○○, 공소외 13 주식회사의 네이버 ‘스폰서링크’ 광고를 약 76,699회 부정클릭하였다.

이로써 피고인 1, 3은 공모하여, 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 허위의 정보 또는 부정한 명령을 입력하거나 권한없이 정보를 입력·변경하는 등의 방법으로 정보처리를 하게 함으로써 피해자 △△△△△, ◁◁◁◁◁, ○○○○○, 공소외 13 주식회사로 하여금 네이버 스폰서링크 광고대행사인 공소외 3 유한회사에 금 144,520,728원 상당의 광고비를 지급하게 하여 위 공소외 3 유한회사로 하여금 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하게 하고, 같은 방법으로 정보처리에 장애를 발생하게 하여 △△△△△, ◁◁◁◁◁ ○○○○○, 공소외 13 주식회사의 광고 및 꽃배달 업무를 방해하였다.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 8 and 9

1. Statement made by Defendant 2 in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 14, 15, 6, 16, 17, and 18

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 7 in the 8th trial record

1. Part of each prosecutor's examination protocol against Defendant 3 of the prosecution Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 19, 5, 20, 6, and 15

1. 수사보고(△△△△△, ◁◁◁◁◁ 부정클릭 로그자료 보고), 수사보고(PVPN 서비스 관련 내용 보고), 수사보고{(인터넷 주소 2 생략) 서버 ip 확인보고}, 수사보고(부정클릭 ip와 공소외 1 회사 연관검색어 조작 키워드 ip와의 비교 및 중복 ip 발췌 보고), 수사보고 (PVPN 로그와 연관검색어 조작용 키워드 로그 및 부정클릭 등의 로그와 비교분석 보고), DDOS(디도스) 해킹공격 공동대책회의 자료, 각 자동 및 연관검색어 작업리스트, 키워드 별 로그 발췌자료, 연관검색어 및 자동완성 키워드

○ Defendant 1, 3, and 4

Articles 347-2, 314(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 71 subparag. 4, 48(2), 71 subparag. 5, 48(3), 72(1)1, and 48(1) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 9119, Jun. 13, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply)

○ Defendant 2

Articles 314(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 71 subparag. 4, 48(2), 71 subparag. 5, and 48(3) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

○ Defendant 8, 9

Articles 71 subparag. 4, 48(2), 72(1)1, and 48(1) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrence (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Selection of punishment;

○ Selection of Imprisonment (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4)

○ Selection of each fine (Defendant 8,9)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 8,9);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (defendants 1, 2, 3, 4);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Order to provide community service (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4);

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code

1. Order to make provisional payment (Defendant 8,9);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. This part of the facts charged

피고인은 자신의 경쟁 업체인 ◁◁◁◁◁의 광고대행사인 공소외 4 주식회사가 자신을 공격하였다고 여기고, 공소외 4 주식회사의 홈페이지 속도를 느리게 하거나, 다운시키기 위하여 불상의 업체에 의뢰하여, 2008. 4.말경 약 1일간 공소외 4 주식회사가 운영 중인 웹사이트(인터넷 주소 3 생략)에 디도스(DDOS) 공격을 하여 위 사이트가 다운되게 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant intruded on the information and communications network without access authority or beyond permitted access authority, and transmitted or spread any program that is likely to damage, destroy, alter, forge, or obstruct the operation of the information and communications system, data, program, etc. without any justifiable reason, and caused trouble to the information and communications network of Nonindicted Co. 4 by sending a large amount of signals or data for the purpose of hindering the stable operation of the information and communications network, or by allowing the processing of unlawful orders, etc., at the same time, the Defendant interfered with the business of Nonindicted Co. 4 by inputting false information or improper orders into the information processing devices, such as computers of Nonindicted Co. 4

B. Determination

From the end of April 2008, the Defendant consistently stated that Nonindicted Co. 4 did not attack DNA (DOS) on the website operated by Nonindicted Co. 4, 2008, as indicated in the facts charged. The evidence of this part of the facts charged includes Defendant 3’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted Co. 8’s statement at this court and prosecutor’s office, and each of the above statements is merely a little fact that he made a DNA attack from the Defendant’s seat at the bar, such as liquor, and there is no other evidence that the above statements were made. Meanwhile, even according to the records of this case, even according to the above facts charged, the Defendant did not specify the company requesting a DNA attack, and around April 2008, the Defendant did not request the above Nonindicted Co. 1 to attack on the website operated by Nonindicted Co. 4, 2008, and there is no other evidence that Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 4, the Internet delivery agent, in light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 2 did not know the above facts charged.

If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty of this part of the facts charged under the latter part of Article 325

2. Defendant 5, 6, and 7

A. This part of the facts charged

From January 8, 2008 to April 21, 2008, the Defendants, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 4, engaged in a fireworks delivery business, engaged in an advertisement of “phone link” at approximately 13,277 times, including △△△△△△, a competitor company, such as △△△△△, as described in attached Table 1-1, and in collusion with Defendant 1 and 3, from March 18, 2008 to May 8, 2008, the Defendants made an advertisement of “phone link” such as △△△△△△, a competitor company, such as △△△△△△△, to have the victim △△△△△△△, a competitor company enter false information or improper order into a computer or enter and change information without authority, thereby interfering with the above affairs of data processing by having the victim △△△△△△△△△△△△, etc. make the above advertisements to make the above third party use of information processing and profit to make the above third party use of information processing.

B. Determination

As indicated in the above facts charged, Defendants 4, 1, or 3, 1 and competitors did not agree to make an advertisement of “sphone link” to deny, and they completely denied crimes.

기록에 의하면, 피고인들이 각자 자신의 인터넷 꽃배달 영업 사이트를 통하여 꽃배 달 영업을 하여 오던 중 2007. 12. 중순경 관련 사이트 대부분이 디도스(DDOS) 공격을 당하는 사건이 발생하였고, 그 후 ○○○○○의 공소외 6의 제안으로 10여개 업체가 모여 이에 대한 대응책을 논의하였는데, 그러는 과정에서 인터넷 꽃배달 업체들 내에서 네이버 또는 공소외 3 유한회사를 통한 과당광고경쟁으로 인해 부정클릭이 발생하고 있다고 판단하고는 이를 피하기 위해 공동 꽃배달 광고 사이트를 만들자는 의견이 모아져, 2008. 1.초순경 공동피고인 1이 운영하는 공소외 2 주식회사 사무실에서 공소외 1 회사 신기술사업부장인 공동피고인 3이 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷을 위한 프리젠테이션을 준비하여 설명회를 하였고, 그 이후 피고인들 및 공소외 10은 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷ 사이트 제작비 명목으로 2008. 1. 21.부터 2008. 1. 23.까지 위 공소외 1 회사 계좌로 각 1,000,000원씩 입금하는 한편, 피해자인 △△△△△의 공소외 15 등에게도 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷의 참여를 제안하기도 하였고, 공소외 1 회사가 제작한 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷ 사이트에는 이미 가입한 피고인들을 포함한 5개 업체 이외에도 신규 업체의 가입을 허용하고 있는 사실, 피고인 5, 6은 2008. 5. 5.경 중국 해커라고 스스로 칭하면서 피고인들의 사이트를 공격하겠다고 협박하며 금전을 요구한 공소외 21을 인천 남동경찰서에 신고하였고, 위 공소외 21은 결국 형사처벌을 받은 사실, 한편, 피고인 7은 2008. 2.경부터 공동피고인 1과 사이에 금장미 거래를 하여 오면서 그 정산대금으로 2008. 3. 18. 2,000,000원, 2008. 4. 30. 1,500,000원, 2008. 7. 17. 2,000,000원, 2008. 9. 17. 2,000,000원을 위 피고인 1 및 그와 함께 일하는 공소외 5의 계좌로 입금한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정사실에다가 기록상 피고인들이 모두 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷ 사이트 제작비용으로 공소외 1 회사 계좌로 돈을 입금한 것 이외에는 피고인 4, 3에게 돈을 지급한 흔적을 찾아 볼 수 없고, 특히 피고인 5, 6은 공동피고인 1에게도 돈을 지급한 흔적을 찾아 볼 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인들이 위 공소사실 기재와 같이 공동피고인 1, 3, 4와 경쟁업체의 네이버 ‘스폰서링크’ 광고를 부정클릭하기로 공모한 것인지에 관하여 법관의 합리적 의심이 없을 정도로 입증되었다고 볼 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Thus, the facts charged against the defendant 5, 6, and 7 in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Sung-sung