1. As to the violation of the Computer Program Protection Act, the lower court found Defendant A’s use of “AA program” in the production of the Z system program as it infringed on the copyright, and found Defendant A guilty of violating the Computer Program (excluding the part not guilty or acquitted of the grounds for appeal) among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that, in light of the function and size of the “A program”, which is the subordinate program of the “V program” and the “A system program”, which is the subordinate program registered by the Victim E in the Program Deliberation Coordination Committee, the copyright is recognized as independent program separate from other subordinate program, “K,” “AB program, and Qa program registered by S Company, and the “AA program” is developed after Defendant A entered into a contract for software development with F or Victim E, and the copyright belongs to the above victim.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the recognition and reversion of copyright on computer programs, or by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to interference with the business, the lower court: (a) allowed S to revise and modify the source code of Q “ Q” program in the process of manufacturing the “AE System” program to F Co., Ltd.; (b) Defendant A’s subordinate program of “ Q” program, which was used as a subordinate program of the said “AE System Program,” and did not arbitrarily change the password and notify the changed password to the victim company; (c) thereby obstructing the victim company with the business of improving the “AE System Program” of the victim company and the printing business using the said system.

Recognizing the facts charged in the instant case, the court found the Defendant guilty of interfering with business affairs.

related.