The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of reasons for appeal is that the defendant was an employee of the defendant under detention;

F was allowed to transfer the instant site to G, and thus, it was known that the right to operate the instant site was transferred.

It should be seen that even if so, the time of accurate transfer did not change.

In light of the fact that at least the transfer of operating rights was imminent or it was sufficiently anticipated that the transfer of operating rights had already been made, the transfer of operating rights has not been confirmed, and that the data received by accessing the site of this case is customer information and the details of orders, which are core information of the Internet shopping mall business, it can be recognized that the Defendant invaded into the information and communications network by accessing the site of this case and receiving customer information downloads.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to eliminate reasonable doubt that the Defendant could have ordered C to the same as the facts charged, without knowledge of the circumstances already concluded by the transfer contract on the actual right to operate.

① On November 2, 2016, the Defendant was detained on suspicion of special conflict, etc., and around that time, the Defendant decided to transfer the right to operate the instant site that he/she operated through F, an employee, to investors G (the husband of D).

The F entered into an asset transfer contract with D on November 18, 2016.

② However, F appears to be a witness in the court of original instance and state that “F is directed to C as stated in the facts charged at the time of detention of the defendant at the time of the detention of the defendant.”

③ G also appears as a witness in the court of original instance and is F.