A. The Defendant: (a) received a call from a substitute driving engineer to connect the victim, who is a substitute driving engineer; (b) although the victim failed to complete the substitute driving to the destination due to the demand of the customer, he/she received the full amount of KRW 20,000 from the customer, even though he/she failed to complete the substitute driving to the destination.

Accordingly, the defendant linked another substitute driver, and paid 10,000 won to the engineer instead of the substitute driver, and urged the victim to pay 8,000 won of the substitute fee by receiving more than the driving distance except call fee.

However, the victim forced the victim through a substitute driving program (colma) in accordance with the method used in practice to recover the above damages, and withdrawn the above damages for call expenses. The program also entered the "8/16th 8,000 won recovery case" in the departure column and the "government viewing-sul-sulbly recovery case" in the destination column.

Ultimately, in light of the overall purport, the contents of the program input by the Defendant cannot be deemed false information, and even though the Defendant did not acquire any pecuniary benefit, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 150,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are asserted 1) Crime of fraud by using computers, etc. (Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act is established when pecuniary benefits are acquired by inputting false information or improper orders or inputting or altering information without authority in data processing devices, such as computers, etc.