The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (not guilty part) is that the Defendant distributed a cloart program without approval by the web fluor, a game related business entity, and caused game users to access the screen he/she operated, thereby falling under the “distribution of a computer program not approved by a game related business entity for the purpose of hindering the normal operation of game products” as prohibited by Article 32(1)8 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”). However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

(a) No person who is a summary of the facts charged shall distribute computer programs, apparatus or device not provided or approved by a game products related business entity for the purpose of hindering the normal operation of the game products, or produce them for their distribution;

Nevertheless, from December 22, 201 to January 31, 2012, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s residence from around December 22, 2011 to around January 31, 201, operated the C and D’s Internet online game server server program, operated the C and D’s online game server program, and then posted the revised C and D’s online site “C and D” program for the purpose of allowing the Defendant to access the server operated by the Defendant.

However, the above cloart program was revised so as to prevent the victim from accessing the normal server of the Internet online game operated by the victim and to connect the illegal server operated by the individual.

Accordingly, the Defendant distributed computer programs that were not provided or approved by web feass company.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant’s crypt program, which the game users opened while operating the server.