1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of interference with the business was as follows: “The Defendant received a modified game program that can enhance the user’s ability or ability of the mobile game produced by the victim game company from the online site of the non-foreign country, and subsequently altered the game program so that the Defendant provided the above game program by using the program of modification of the mobile display system so that it can be put on the screen at the time of the implementation of the game program, and then, posted and distributed the game program that the Defendant directly opened to the user of the mobile display sharing website, thereby hindering the Defendant’s normal business operation of the victim game company by deceptive means.

“” is:

2. The court below, based on its stated reasoning, found that the act of this case where the defendant posted and distributed the game program altered, constitutes a deceptive scheme which is conducted for the purpose of causing mistake, awareness, or site of the victim game company, and that the act of this case constitutes a risk that the defendant's act may interfere with the normal business of the victim game company.

In light of the above facts charged, the first instance judgment convicting the above facts charged was maintained.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) As to the crime of interference with business through a deceptive scheme under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “defensive scheme” means that a person causing mistake or a site to another person in order to achieve the purpose of an act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8734, Dec. 24, 2014). (2) Where a game user installs a game program modified as stated in the instant facts charged on his/her own mobile device and executes it and connects the game server.