정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case.
Punishment of the crime
No one shall cause a trouble to an information and communications network with intent to interfere with stable operation of the information and communications network by sending a large amount of signals or data, letting the network process an illegitimate order, etc.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, on June 22, 2016, transferred KRW 170,00 to C’s post office account in the name of the non-scambling that asked to attack a foreign gambling site via the Kakakakao Stockholm on or around 22:35, 2016, and sent a large amount of signals or data to the private gambling site D by accessing the robotnet IRC server and responding to an indeption attack.
Unless the above private gambling site has been connected for about 30 minutes, an information and communications network trouble occurred in the way of causing communication disorder to the relevant server and communications network.
Summary of Evidence
Article 71 subparag. 10, and Article 48 subparag. 3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization Act (Attachment to the judgment of the court), a list of investigation reports (Attachment to the judgment of the court), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the attached data), a report on internal investigation (Analysis of the contents of the interview with the Kakaoo Stockholm), a criminal investigation report (verification of the Ddose Television), a report on investigation (verification of the Ddose Television), a report on investigation (Attachment to a lux file), applicable to the investigation report (Attachment to a lux), Articles 71 subparag. 10 and 48 subparag. 3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network and Communications Network (Attachment to the judgment of the court of first instance), the defendant asserted that there was no real obstacle to the defendant's assertion of the defendant's choice of imprisonment, but in light of the list (Evidence No. 16, No. 16), the defendant again requested the above 2 on the Internet site. 3.