On October 6, 2015, the Defendant was notified of his resignation from the injured party at the pertinent private teaching institute, and was arranged at the office of the said private teaching institute on October 14:02, 2015. On October 14:02, the Defendant sought NAS program from the Defendant’s computer used by the Defendant and connected it to the cloud server OFICE (hereinafter “instant server”), and the Defendant was unable to restore it by arbitrarily deleting eight files for the call-up test site for middle school stored in the Cloud at the location of the victim, and nine files for the call-up analysis.

As a result, the defendant damaged electronic records and interfered with the operation of private teaching institutes such as collecting teaching content data and collecting presentation data for parents.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be judged even if there is suspicion as to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010, etc.). (b) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as legitimate evidence investigation by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone that interferes with the operation of the victim's private teaching institute.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On October 6, 2015, the Defendant received a notice of dismissal from the injured party, and set aside on the 10th of the same month, and the Defendant’s name in the pertinent server (hereinafter “the instant server”).