[1] Whether an act of a person without authority to change the ID and password of a manager entered into an information processing device without permission constitutes the crime of interference with business, such as a computer, etc. (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the act of an employee who managed a computer system server of a university without the authority to manage and operate the web server upon receipt of a transfer order constitutes the crime of interference with business, such as computer, etc., by accessing the web server and changing the ID and password of the web server without permission

[1] An act of a person, who is not authorized to manage and operate an information processing unit, without permission, changing the ID and password of a manager entered in the information processing unit to the information processing unit, making it impossible to access the information processing unit with a legitimate ID and password by inputting an improper order into the information processing unit, as an act of making it impossible to access the information processing unit with a legitimate ID and password, not only practically causing trouble in the information processing, but also causing danger of

[2] The case holding that the act of the defendant who managed the computer system server of a university without the right to manage and operate the web server any longer by accessing the web server and changing the ID and password of the web server without the right to manage and operate the web server constitutes an act of interference with business, such as computer, etc., because it constitutes an act of not notifying the successor, etc. of the ID and password of the manager of the web homepage that the defendant had entered and operated the web server for a legitimate right to manage and operate the web server, unlike the act of not notifying the successor, etc. of the identification of the ID and password of the manager of the web homepage that the defendant did not inform him of the identity

[1] Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kwon Young-young

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004No1723 Decided December 23, 2004

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the main and preliminary facts charged under paragraph (1) shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. The prosecutor's remaining appeal shall be dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal as to Article 1 of the primary and preliminary facts charged

A. The judgment of the court below

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: "the defendant worked as a person in charge of managing various computer systems servers at (university name omitted) university information support center around December 200, and around February 10, 2004 at the above university's information support center office around February 12, 2004. At the above university's information support center office, the defendant was issued a transfer order. On February 12, 2004, the above university information support center did not have legitimate authority to change information about the web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's web server's management and its incidental unit's computer server's data processing problems such as the management of the above university's web homepage, and thus, the court below determined that the defendant did not inform the manager of the above university's web server's computer's computer manager's function or interfere with its password's management's.

B. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

The crime of interference with business by interference with a computer, etc. under Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act is established by destroying a special media record, such as a computer, etc., or a special media record, such as a computer, etc., or by inputting a false information or improper order, or causing interference with the processing of data by other methods. Thus, the act of a person, who is not authorized to manage and operate the data processing unit, without permission, changing the ID and password of a manager, which was entered in the data processing unit, to the data processing unit without permission, by inputting an improper order into the data processing unit, making it impossible to access the data processing unit with a legitimate ID and password, and thereby, may cause interference with the processing

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's access to the web server without the right to manage and operate the web server and changes the ID and password of the web server manager without permission. In light of the above legal principles, unlike the act that the defendant did not inform his successor, etc. of the ID and password that he entered while the defendant had a legitimate right to manage and operate the web server, the above act of the defendant constitutes an act that does not cause practical interference with the business of the above (university name omitted) university by inputting the illegal order into the information processing device and causing practical interference with the information processing, and thus constitutes a crime of interference with business, such as computer, etc., under Article 314 (2) of the Criminal Act. At that time, the above (university name omitted) university did not have any practical necessity to change the contents of the web server by accessing the web server's web server's web homepage manager's account, or it cannot be viewed that the ID and password could have easily been restored by using the early program.

Therefore, the court below determined that the above act of the defendant does not constitute the crime of interference with business such as computer, and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of interference with business such as computer under Article 314 (2) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the primary and preliminary facts charged cannot be reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.

3. As to the ground of appeal as to Article 2 of the primary and preliminary facts charged

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to find the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no proof of a crime, and there is no error of law such as incomplete hearing or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Paragraph (1) of the main and preliminary facts charged is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)