The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of interference with business is acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant sold and disseminated the usage certification code of “E”, which is the automatic match program of the online “D” game operated by the victim (hereinafter “victim company”)C (hereinafter “victim company”), as shown in this part of the facts charged, but the game users who purchased the use certification code of the said automatic match program from the Defendant to connect the “D” game by installing and implementing the said automatic match program.

As above, the Defendant’s act of selling the certification code of the use of the automatic match program does not constitute “defensive” under the crime of interference with business, and there is no relation between the Defendant and the game users who purchased the automatic match program.

Therefore, the Defendant did not establish the crime of interference with business, and cannot order additional collection on the premise that the crime of interference with business is established. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on interference with business and additional collection, which affected the conclusion

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from February 23, 2015 to June 30, 2019, the Defendant spreaded “E” on the malicious program of the “D” game in the same manner as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the instant case at the seat of the Chinese branch and the B hotel located in Busan, thereby hindering the victim company’s normal operation of the game by a deceptive scheme, such as distributing the “E” in the same manner as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the instant case; and (b) allowing the game user to implement the said program and newly install a fash program and security program to control the malicious program.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

C. In the crime of interference with business by deceptive means as stipulated in Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, “defensive means” is deemed to be “defensive means.”