When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

While the Defendants were employed as an employee in the victim-based Liology D (hereinafter referred to as the "victim Company") who operates online Liology, etc., they left from around December 2013 and were working in the "E" as the same kind of company, the Defendants were willing to delete the tables used by the victim company in competition with the victim company for business purposes.

On January 10, 2014, the Defendants conspired to enter without permission any permission the deletion, withdrawal order, and withdrawal order using the ID, password, etc. from G located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, and thereby interfered with the management of private teaching institutes of the victim company by withdrawing and deleting NAV B, which was operated by the victim company for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to make some statements in each police interrogation protocol to J or K;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (2) and (1), and 30 (Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that: (a) the Defendant removed or deleted the above four categories; (b) it merely assisted the Defendant to exercise the legitimate authority of I, the nominal owner; and (c) it cannot be deemed that there was no intention to interfere with the business; and (d) the Defendant conspired with I.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, i.e., ① the Defendant’s deletion of the account with I, was in charge of the Defendant’s establishment of the Defendant’s personal information with the consent of the victim’s company by using his personal information with the consent of the representative H in order to promote the marketing of the victim company, and ② the Defendant was employed as a short-term non-regular worker of the victim company and was in charge of posting a letter for promotion on the above tables, and thus, the Defendant was well aware of the Defendant’s disclosure method as the only promotion method of the victim company.