1. Interference with business such as computer, etc.;

A. Defendant B, AG, AH, AI, and F’s grounds of appeal are asserted (1) Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “a person who interferes with another’s business by destroying information processing devices, such as computers, or special media records, such as electronic records, or by inputting false information or improper orders, or by causing interference with information processing by other means.”

Here, “information of false information or unlawful order” means inputting information that goes against the objective truth, or inputting an order different from the original purpose of operation of the information processing unit, and “other methods” means any act that directly or indirectly affects the operation of a computer as a means of harming the information processing of a computer.

Meanwhile, in order for the above crime to be established, data processing disorder such as failure to function in line with the purpose of use or performance of functions different from the purpose of use should actually occur as a result of the above harmful act, but if there is a risk of interference with business due to disorder in data processing, sufficient interference with business may occur and even if the result of interference with business actually does not occur, such crime

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7943 Decided May 24, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14607 Decided March 28, 2013, etc.) determined that the lower court constituted interference with the victim’s duty of calculating the order of comments by entering false information or unlawful orders into the information processing process.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is necessary, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.