The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of violation of Article 72 (1) 1 and Article 48 (1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Information and Communications Network Act") shall be established when an intrusion on an information and communications network without legitimate access authority or beyond

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do870, Nov. 25, 2005; 201Do5299, Jul. 28, 2011). Meanwhile, Article 75 of the Information and Communications Network Act provides that “When a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation or an individual commits a violation under any of Articles 71 through 73 or 74 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such violator be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.”

In this case, a corporation shall be punished due to negligence of neglecting the duty of considerable attention or management and supervision in relation to the business of violation. Whether a corporation has neglected considerable attention or supervision in a specific case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances related to the violation in question, i.e., the legislative purport of the relevant law, the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to violate the penal provisions, the intent of preparing joint penal provisions concerning the violation, as well as the specific form of the violation, the degree of damage or result actually caused thereby, the business size of the corporation, the possibility of supervision or supervision over the offender, and the measures actually taken by the

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do9624 Decided April 15, 2010 and Supreme Court Decision 201Do11264 Decided May 9, 2012, etc.). The reasoning of the lower judgment is as follows.