The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was duly approaching the victim E’s e-mail account (F; hereinafter “instant e-mail account”) used as the official domain of D (hereinafter “D”) and there was no authority to intrude into the information and communications network without revealing the victim’s personal secrets.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts as to the subject of information, access authority, time, and leakage of information, and by erroneous adoption

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant discovered a business agreement in the name of the victim when searching for the mail of the victim (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and presented the instant agreement to G by approaching the information and communications network to prevent the use of the name of the said organization. Therefore, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. 1) The offense of violation of the relevant legal doctrine and Articles 72(1)1 and 48(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is established when an intrusion on the information and communications network beyond the authorized access authority or beyond the authorized access authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5299, Jul. 28, 201). In addition, the fact that another person’s secret provided for in Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act is not generally known and is an interest in not notifying the other person thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2212, Jan. 12, 2012). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the legal doctrine and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant connects to the e-mail account of this case without a legitimate authority to the information and communications network of the victim.