According to the evidence of this case, even though the defendant could be found to have committed the crime of interference with business and the crime of fraud by using computers, etc. as stated in the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the defendant.

Judgment

A. Summary of the facts charged 1) The Defendant interfering with business is limited to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) which is the victim of the building B in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

Around July 10, 2018, when working as the representative director of the victim company, there was no authority to execute the company's funds by the resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders of the above company. On July 11, 2018, the victim's company bank's company Gap managed by the victim's auditor E was reissued with a new OTP card under the victim's name so that it could not use the victim's company's OTP card (one-time password), and transferred KRW 78 million to the company's company's bank (FF) Internet banking site by accessing the victim company's company's Internet banking site as above on July 30, 2018. On the same day, it was difficult for the victim to execute the company's funds under the victim's name (H) under the victim's name (78 million won under the victim's company's name) under the victim's company's name (J) to transfer the funds to the above company's company's account under the victim's name (7.280 million won under the victim's name).