A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Presumption of Facts] The Defendant is a person engaged in online advertising business while operating an Internet camera in a number of Arabics in which he/she has joined another person's name, and the victim F is a person who operates a H's towing business in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

The Defendant, with the knowledge that if users display the same writing on the Internet portal site (htp:/www.naver.com), the system could operate the result of the search (hereinafter referred to as “a similar document attack”) by using a system defect that can exclude the date of its own preparation from the search result of the portal site by classifying a notice in a similar document, at the latest, by which the system could be operated (hereinafter referred to as “a similar document attack”). The Defendant, upon receiving money from a specific company intending to advertise via the Internet, had the competitors excluded advertising notices posted on the Internet portal site by means of a similar document attack.

[2] On February 8, 2017, at the Defendant’s residence located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, the Defendant written a notice (L) of the title “K” on the NAC, a NAC, operated by the Defendant using a computer, and written a notice (N) of the title “M” on the same day on the same car page as 14:26 day.

Around 15:42 on the same day, the Defendant continuously discovered a publicity title (P) of the “O” that the victim posted on the Nber Brob to advertise the “H”, and made the so-called “a similar document attack” that excludes the original copy of the publicity text prepared by the victim from the search result of the portal site by copying and posting the phrases and photographs recorded in the victim’s publicity text on the front page.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's publicity activities through fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the defendant in the first trial record;

1. Each police officer against the defendant.