A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of business by fraudulent means.

1) The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, copied the words and photographs of promotional writing posted on the NV Rober Blouse, and then moved to the NAV car page on his/her own. However, there was no active act by the Defendant, such as reporting the victim’s above promotional writing to NVER as a similar document, and the Defendant merely determined the Defendant’s notice from the NV’s system as the original and presented it as the result of search to the user. As such, the Defendant’s act alone committed the crime of interference with his/her duties.

The above promotional article by the injured party is not considered ① (hereinafter “claim”). The above promotional article by the injured party constitutes a deceptive display or advertisement as stipulated in Article 3(1)2 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, and constitutes an illegal advertisement, and thus does not constitute a business that is protected by the crime of interference with business (hereinafter “B’s assertion”). (b) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the injured party (a prison term of eight months, a suspended execution of two years, and a community service time of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of the legal principle as to the assertion 1) ① In the case of obstruction of business by fraudulent means, the above guidance refers to causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the actor’s act, and the other party to the act by deceptive means is not the same as the victim of obstruction of business (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1492, Jul. 14, 2005, etc.). Na) The court below duly adopted and examined by the court below, as revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant knew the system defects of the Internet portal site.