The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In light of the legal principle, although the defendant entered a factory E, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant arbitrarily deleted the program installed in the factory with respect to the crime of interference with business, since all the programs deleted by the defendant were out of the factory, even if the defendant deleted the program, it did not interfere with the victim's business. Thus, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, even if not, on the one hand.

Judgment

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of entering a structure, if a structure is a structure for which the entry of the general public is permitted against the explicit or presumed intent of the manager, the crime of entering a structure is established. Thus, if the structure for which the entry of the general public is permitted enters the structure for the purpose of crime, such as destroying the facility, etc., the crime of entering a structure is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7079, Mar. 15, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant had the authority to freely enter the factory of this case and was not regularly retired from E at the time of this case, but as seen later, it is recognized that the defendant entered the factory of this case for the purpose of obstructing the defendant's business.