2. In light of the fact that an attack may cause trouble to the information and communications network of a company or an agency subject to the attack and bring about social confusions, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a planned and organized manner by using his own professional knowledge for the purpose of gaining property benefits although the Defendant operated a company providing defense services for a DNA attack, and that the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime is not easy, etc., the Defendant’s responsibility for the crime is very heavy.

However, there is no history of punishment for the Defendant in addition to one fine. The instant crime was committed by installing a malicious program on a large number of unspecified and unspecified personal computers, and it appears that it was committed by leasing a large amount of signals or data to an information and communications network, rather than a large-scale DNA attack for transmitting a large amount of signals or data by remotely coordinating this program, and it would be less than half of the recent signal transmission signal level from the beginning. The Defendant does not intentionally commit an attack on the information and communications network of financial institutions. The Defendant is not likely to intentionally commit an attack on the information and communications network of financial institutions, as it was discovered and block from the fire walls, etc. of financial institutions, it seems that the occurrence of a DNA attack was not likely to cause any trouble to the information and communications network of financial institutions. The damage caused by the attack company seems to be significant, and the Defendant did not repeat the crime again while breaking his depth, taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime.