The appeal against the defendant A and the prosecutor B shall be dismissed, respectively.

A. The Defendant A’s request for data recovery was damaged by the fault on the part of the victim, such as hyke, and even if Defendant A intentionally did not damage the hyke disc, the judgment below convicting the Defendant on the premise that it was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In full view of various circumstances revealed by the evidence submitted, such as the size of the enterprise operated by the prosecutor, the excessive repair cost, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the reversion of criminal proceeds, etc., the defendant B could fully recognize the facts of his participation in the crime, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant B, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant A received a large amount of repair fees by deceiving the victim as if the victim could not recover data from other companies, after easily restoring the data of the hard disc that the victim requested restoration.

Since the above defendant's assertion is sufficiently acceptable, it is not accepted.

1) Around July 15, 2014, the victim requested repair of the hard disc to “G” working for Defendant A, and at the time, the said Defendant responded that it would be possible to repair KRW 660,000.

In order to hear the expected repair cost, the victim received the hard disc and requested the repair to another computer repair business entity through the staff.

However, the data of hard disks is living in other companies, and it is not possible to recognize the program in the specialized companies.