The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the dismissed part among the public prosecution, shall be reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charge of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. among the facts charged in the instant case (non-indicted 1), the facts charged in this part are found guilty in the judgment of the Busan District Court 2017No. 385 (Seoul High Court 2016 High Court 5057), which is the relevant case. The defendant's use of the testing tower can confirm a lux file and a lux file with a lux file. However, if the defendant purchased a lux file with a lux file with a lux file with a 4,820 computer as argued by the defendant, if the lux file was stored in the defendant's computer or the files were distributed to 4,820 computers, it can be recognized that the defendant distributed a lux file on the 4,820 computers.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

(B) As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Act, excluding (3) net time 2) among the facts charged in the instant case, this part of the facts charged is identified by classifying the date and amount of money that the Defendant received in return for the attack, and the person who requested the commission of the crime, etc. according to the Defendant’s statement. The public prosecutor’s office is distinguishable from other facts charged and the method is sufficient to clarify the elements of the crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution on the grounds that the information and communications network infringed on this part of the facts charged is not entirely specified, and there is a error of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (6 months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The above sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The instant case.