In a case where an act of inputting information into an information processing device, such as computer, etc. through deceptive means, is performed for the purpose of causing mistake, dismissal, or site of a person in charge of duties based on information entered into the information system, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent means, rather than directly involving a person in charge of duties (affirmative)

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1721 Decided January 17, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 257) Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506 Decided March 25, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 841)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Inn, Attorneys Shin Young-soo et al.

Incheon District Court Decision 2012No3834 Decided March 29, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The application column of the law of the court of first instance shall be corrected to “Article 314(1) and Article 313 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act” to “Articles 314(1), 313 (Selection of Imprisonment), and 30 of the Criminal Act.”

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In the crime of interference with business through fraudulent means that an offender misleads the other party or causes a misunderstanding, dismissal, or site to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and if there is a risk of causing the result of interference with business, and the propriety or fairness of the business is hindered, not itself, and the crime of interference with business is established even in the case of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Furthermore, if the act of inputting information into an information processing device, such as computer, was conducted for the purpose of causing mistake, mistake, or site based on the input information, it cannot be said that the act was not directly subject to the person in charge of the business.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of taking electronic voting to the Nonindicted Party, a candidate that he supports in his name, after receiving only a certification number from voters during the presidential election for recommending the 19th National Assembly candidate for proportional representative candidates for the 19th National Assembly members of ○○○○○○○ party, constitutes an act of obstructing the appropriateness or fairness of the competition business by having the relevant persons involved in the competition business in the instant case mistake and perceive the facts regarding the support rate, etc. of the candidates for proportional representative candidates, thereby obstructing the appropriateness or fairness of the competition business, and the use of the computer in such criminal

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of interference with business

2. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed. The phrase “Article 314(1) and Article 313 of the Criminal Act (Optional to Imprisonment)” in the context of the application of the law of the court of first instance is clear that it is a clerical error in the provisions of Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)