정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(정보통신망침해등)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the fact-finding response by the company that develops the substitute driving program on behalf of the defendants, and the name and leaflet of the defendants used to publicize the program, the "F" program that the defendants disseminated means a program that may damage, destroy, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of the malicious program information and communications system, data, program, etc. under Article 48(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.
Since the judgment of the court below constitutes an error of mistake of facts.
2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the “F” program does not arbitrarily change its original function or interfere with the operation of another substitute driving program, but it is difficult to exclude the possibility that it merely functions to grant convenience to the function of changing the position of GPS already in another substitute driving program, such as the Defendants’ change of the user’s location information, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ distribution of the “F” program constitutes a malicious program by hindering the operation of other substitute driving programs by arbitrarily changing the user’s location information, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that it cannot be proven without reasonable doubt that the instant facts charged against the Defendants on this premise constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime.
Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.