Defendant 1 and 4

Defendants and Prosecutor

Power of Demotion

Law Firm Dawon, Attorney Kim Jae-in

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Ra1874 Decided January 9, 2007

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by respective fines of KRW 20,00,000, Defendant 3 and 4 by fines of KRW 7,000,000, and Defendant 5 shall be punished by fines of KRW 10,00,00,00.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged that Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 5 violated the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. due to the damage to the processed information.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle)

(1) The point of interference with business

(A) The failure of the competitor’s plug program does not necessarily mean that the function included in the Defendants’ plug program is operated, and the Defendants’ plug program’ plug program does not temporarily be deleted by users. Except in the case where the Defendants’ plug program does not temporarily be deleted by users, all the functions included in the Defendants plug program operated only when the Defendants’ plug program contained in the deletion order from the competitors. The Defendants’ functions included in the pluger program are legitimate methods for competition in accordance with the technical limits that occur when the services are provided through the Internet pluger’s address window and cannot be viewed as using unlawful means. The Defendants did not directly use the deceptive scheme to the competitors, and the Defendants’ act does not constitute interference with the duties in light of the following: (a) the Defendants’ act could not be viewed as deceiving users by clearly expressing that the use of the competitor’s program may be restricted in the event of installing the Defendants’ programs through the terms and conditions.

(B) The Defendants’ act is an act to defend the illegal deletion of Nonindicted Company 1 and constitutes legitimate defense or an emergency evacuation.

(C) While the Defendants sought ways to respond to illegal deletions by Nonindicted Company 1, they included additional functions in the plug program by receiving sufficient advice from the attorneys-at-law and the business suspension body, etc., so the Defendants’ actions are excluded from responsibility.

(2) Violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (information network infringement)

The defendants distributed program does not cause any one of the common symptoms that can be seen from computer virusess, such as a fall in the operating speed of computer, the destruction of the system itself, and the voluntary change of the metiology, and even if the program of the defendants does not operate within the scope where the program is operated, it cannot be said that the defendants still provide the same Korean language key service and bring about a result of not wanting to users. The failure of the fair competition company to operate the program is inevitable due to the technical limit of the Internet fluor address creativity. Therefore, the defendants' fluor program does not correspond to the "malicious program" under Article 48 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., but the court below found the defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) Legal principles

(A) Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Information and Communications Network Infringement)

The URL containing “a competitive company’s fluorg program, including Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3’s competitor’s fluorg program designed to transmit the Korean language word in the address window to its server” and “URL containing the English bluor domain (English 1, 2 omitted, etc.) of Nonindicted Co. 1’s bluorg, which was entered in the bluor’s address entrance seal” constitutes “information” under Article 49 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) and the act of arbitrarily changing the word and arbitrarily moving it constitutes “damage” but the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(B) Interference with the use of computers, etc. by users

Even based on this part of the facts charged itself, ① Internet users of the computer which installed the Defendant 5’s plug program were damaged or obstructed the business of using the Internet through the competitor’s plug program, including Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc.; ② Internet users of the computer which installed the Defendant 5’s plug program were interfered with the use of the Internet through the competitor’s plug program; ② the users of the computer who installed the Defendant 5’s plug program were obstructed or deleted from the services and the business of the plug program of the competitor’s plug program and the malicious code treatment program; and thus, this part of the facts charged was clearly specified because it was evident that the use of the computer was obstructed by the competitor’s plug program and the malicious code treatment program through the normal use of the plug program and the malicious code treatment program; but the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on this part, thereby dismissing the prosecution on the ground that this part of the facts charged was not specified.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing (defendants 1, 2, 3, 4)

Considering the fact that the above Defendants attempted to block the normal operation of a competitor’s business program without seeking to generate their own operating profits through a lawful method, and that the use of multiple computer users in this process causes inconvenience, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

(3) If Nonindicted Co. 1’s address or computer or any other information processing device of Nonindicted Co. 4 through 8 (“Non-Indicted Co. 1”) were removed by means of any change in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1’s address or information processing device to which Nonindicted Co. 2’s address or information processing device would interfere with the business of providing each of the Korean language language services to Nonindicted Co. 1, 2, and 3’s Internet users by means of fraudulent means, or causing interference with the processing of information by any other means, such as entering any improper order into the information processing device, and thereby hindering each of the above services of Defendant Co. 1’s Internet users who installed and used the program in Korean language by means of any change in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5’s address or computer’s address by means of any change in the information and communications network of Nonindicted Co. 5’s address or information processing device’s address or any other means, thereby hindering each of the above services of Defendant Co. 1, 2,3 and 4’s respective competitive information processing devices installed by any means.

Despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendants and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are considered to be subject to the party members' judgment.

3. Facts of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

A. From February 2004, Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. started in full scale the business related to the Mexico service, and when the Hangul word is entered in the address entry of the Internet web slaber program, Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., operated the Internet web slaber support program (ordinary fluor program) installed on the user’s computer, directly connect the Internet site to the relevant Internet site in case of the Korean short language related to the Internet site registered with Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., and in other cases, the search results of the Internet portal site is shown on the computer, and it is operated by the method of receiving fees from the registered company in Korean short language.

Defendant 2, the representative director of Defendant 5 Company, and Defendant 1, as the nominal owner who registered the patent for the “Internet Address’s Self-Language Service System” invention in relation to the above Hangul Diplomatic Services as a director of the above company, jointly with Nonindicted Company 1, jointly operates Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 jointly.

B. Defendant 5 distributed, for the above services, the “Damd Co., Ltd.” or “Mammmpart (MYmmpart) program” (hereinafter “Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.”). Defendant 5 distributed, at Defendant 5’s website and cooperation site, a LYE No. 1) security warning window.

C. Defendant 5 Company: (a) had already provided the service by distributing its own flusing program; (b) Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 2, and Nonindicted Company 3, etc.; (c) provided the service by means of a server, in addition to distributing “Korean flusing Internet address guide,” one’s own flusing program; and (d) Nonindicted Company 2 operated the service by adding its flusing program to the “ YU” program, which is one of its own flusing treatment programs (the nature of the flusing service, can not be realized at the same time on the user’s computer; and (e) only the service of one company prior to the order of operation in accordance with the operating principle of computer and the service method of each company may be realized).

D. Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.: (a) sought to provide Korean language speed service in the first Urlch Shech 3) and BHO (BH 4). However, if a pller program is installed on a computer by another competitor, it is impossible to provide services preferentially to the competitor; (b) since February 27, 2004, Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. searched and searched the pller program installed by Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. to BH, and at the same time, Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. registered the pller program with BH in front of the registration information of the competitor, and at the same time, Defendant 40 U.S. Co., Ltd. installed the pller program with no operation of the program, and Defendant 50 U.S. Co. 40.

E. There was a case where the above methods could not be given priority to competitors. However, in order to enable Defendant 5 corporation to provide services by first adding the fluor program of other companies to the fluor program, in the middle, in order to enable Defendant 5 corporation to run the fluor program first, and then monitor the process of processing the fluor program with their server domain names attached to 5) DNS, which was entered into the address entry creation, and then sent the fluor program to Defendant 5). The fluoral address of Defendant 5 corporation was arbitrarily changed to the fluoral address corresponding to Defendant 5 corporation server and sent the function of transmitting the fluor program to Defendant 5 corporation’s server to the fluoral address of Defendant 5 corporation, thereby preventing Defendant 1 corporation from functioning the fluoral program of Defendant 5 corporation. The fluoral address of Defendant 5 corporation was removed from the fluoral web address of Defendant 1 corporation through the website, including the domain name 1 and 2 omitted.

F. around November 2004, Defendant 1 and 2 requested Defendant 4 and 3 of Nonindicted Co. 5 Company to develop programs that enable Defendant 5 to take advantage of Defendant 5 Company’s program and malicious program treatment program (△△△△△△△△△ in Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 1), not to delete the program, even if Defendant 5 Company attempted to delete the program, but to automatically recover even if deleted, and Defendant 5 Company’s program superior to the competitor’s program. Since the deletion order and deletion order by the competitor company cannot be technically distinguishable, Defendant 1 and 2 requested Defendant 4 and 3 to develop the program so that it is impossible to delete all of the above deletion order.

G. Defendant 4 and 3 developed and provided a protection cap pursuant to the above request. From February 17, 2005, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 distributed the protection cap to Defendant 5’s plug program.

H. As above, the program with the protection cap installed is not deleted even in a case where users, other than the deletion through the competitor company's plug's plug's plug's deletion function in the process of blocking the input value through the operation system of the competitor company's plug's plug's plug's plug's plug's operation. In this process, the program was deleted without the user's consent when the computer re- installed, and the program was deleted without the user's consent.

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

(1) The point of interference with business

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another's business by deceptive means, and the term "defensive means" in this context refers to causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the offender's act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do504, Mar. 25, 2005, etc.).

In addition to the above facts, even if the same Korean language program is entered by the above evidence, it cannot be seen that users receive the same service regardless of the same program because the result is not the same. When the program is installed through a security warning window on the website, users are required to install a program without consideration as to what program is installed for the use of the service, because it is difficult for the users to use the program for any purpose and to accurately know what function the program is installed through the security warning window, it is hard to see that Defendant 5 corporation’s installation of a new program is linked to the security screen, but even if the contents of the program are not confirmed, it is difficult to see that the use of the program would be more convenient than that of Defendant 5 corporation’s installation of a new program, and it is difficult to see that the use of the program would be more convenient than that of Defendant 5 corporation’s installation of a new program, in light of the contents of the program.

The Defendants asserted that their acts constitute self-defense or an act of self-defense as a defense against the deletion of the plug program of Nonindicted Company 1 by unlawful Defendant 5, or that their legal interests constituted an emergency evacuation as an act of considerable reason to avoid the present danger, and thus, they can be acknowledged that Nonindicted Company 1 deleted the plug program of Defendant 5, or the plug program function of △△△△△△△△△△△△, by using the plug program of Nonindicted Company 1 or the plug program of Nonindicted Company 5. However, in light of the above, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act constituted self-defense or an emergency evacuation in view of the intent distributed by the Defendants, including the above function in the pluger program as seen above, and the method of responding thereto, as well as the competitor company and the computer users, were also damaged

In addition, the defendants argued that their actions are not a crime under the law, and that their misunderstanding is justified for the reason that they are not responsible, so it can be acknowledged that the defendants received counsel from lawyers about some parts of the program distribution. However, the defendants were in the position to sufficiently know that their distribution of a plug program with the above function as seen above would interfere with the competition company's business, and they went to the same act. Thus, even if the defendants generally become a crime, it is difficult to see that there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding that they do not constitute a crime as permitted under the law in their special circumstances.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(2) Violation of the Information and Communications Network Act due to malicious program prisoners of war

According to Article 48(2) of the Information and Communications Network Act, “no person shall deliver or spread a program that may damage, destroy, alter, forge, or interrupt the operation of an information and communications system, data, program, etc. without any justifiable reason (hereinafter referred to as “malicious program”).

보건대, 2005. 2. 17. 무렵 배포된 피고인 5 주식회사의 플러그인 프로그램에는 보호모듈이 탑재되어 있었는데, 사용자가 윈도우즈 제어판의 프로그램 제거기능을 통하여 피고인 5 주식회사 플러그인 프로그램에 대한 삭제 명령을 내려도 외견상 삭제되는 것처럼 보일뿐 피고인 5 주식회사 플러그인 프로그램 중 보호모듈 파일은 삭제되지 않고, 해당 컴퓨터가 재부팅될 때 피고인 5 주식회사 서버에 접속한 다음 설치 파일을 다운로드 받아 몰래 재설치되는 기능을 가지고 있었고, 이에 대하여 사용자들에게 고지하지 아니하였음은 위에서 인정한 바와 같고, 2005. 4. 무렵 ○○○연구소에서는 피고인 5 주식회사의 플러그인 프로그램이 정상적으로 삭제되지 않는다는 컴퓨터 사용자들의 신고를 받아 위 보호모듈을 악성프로그램으로 분류하였던 점, 사용자들은 ○○○연구소의 치료 프로그램을 이용하여서야 피고인 5 주식회사의 플러그인 프로그램을 삭제할 수 있었던 점, 2005. 8. 무렵 정보통신부가 제시한 악성프로그램 판단기준에 의하면 ‘이용자가 프로그램을 제거하거나 종료시켜도 당해 프로그램이 제거되거나 종료되지 않는 행위’를 그 기준의 하나로 보고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면 위 보호모듈은 정보통신시스템의 운용을 방해할 수 있는 프로그램으로서 정보통신망법 소정의 “악성프로그램”에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하여, 피고인들의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

B. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion

(1) Violation of the Information and Communications Network Act due to information damage

(A) Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. conspired with Nonindicted 6, from the end of May 2004 to the beginning of December of the same year, and Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., located in the office of Defendant 5 located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, (number omitted); ① Nonindicted Co. 1, 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3, etc., who installed a competitive company’s fluor program, entered some of the information processed by Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.’s fluorg program in the name of the address of the competitor, and then moved the Korean language into Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.’s server, not the above competitor’s server, without permission, so that the fluor program could be changed into the information processed by the information and communications network to which Nonindicted Co. 1, 202’s fluorgian’s fluorian fluor fluor fluor fluor f.

(B) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the "information" under Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act is equivalent to or equivalent to the "confidential" that is the object of protection under the same Article, and that the information on other person's credit and personal information constitutes it, but it does not constitute it merely because the content prepared by other person does not correspond to it. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Korean language information under this part of the facts charged constitutes another person's information, and there is no other evidence to view it as constituting it.

(C) Judgment of the court below

1) General legal principles

Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act provides that no person shall damage other person's information processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network, or infringe, use, or divulge another person's secret. The concept of "information" does not include the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Information and Communications Network Act, and Article 2 (2) of the same Act provides that the definition of terms used in this Act shall be in accordance with the Framework Act on Informationalization Promotion except as provided in paragraph (1) of the same Article. Under the Framework Act on Informationalization Promotion, "information" means all kinds of data or knowledge expressed by a natural person or a corporation in codes, letters, voice, sound, or image by processing them in optical or electronic form for a specific purpose, and the concept of "information" under Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act is also the same. In addition, according to the precedents, Article 49 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. prohibits damage in cases of information by distinguishing information from information and communication secrets, while the concept of information is narrower than that it is infringed, and prohibited by 2000.

2) As to the part of the indictments No. 1

In light of the following circumstances, unlike English domain name, the Korean short language, which is entered in the webbroer's address entry records, can show a completely different result depending on whether a plug program is installed on the computer or an enterprise's plug program is installed. In a case where a number of enterprises are installed, any one pller program is operated and processed. In this case, if a pller program is entered in the address entry window, a technical measure is taken to allow each company to move the program to its server at each stage of being processed through the information and communications network. Ultimately, the Korean short language is not a final outcome but a result is presented through the process of processing by each individual computer installed in the information and communications network, and the defendants' act in this part cannot be viewed as an act affecting the process of processing the information recorded in the address entry window by the information and communications network, and there is no other evidence to support the defendants' act in this part as an act affecting the normal processing of the information. Thus, the defendants' act in this part is beyond the scope of punishment under the provisions of the Information and Communications Network Act.

3) As to this part of the facts charged

The English bridmer, which is entered in the web Brazil’s address entry box, is expressed by optical or electronic means to access the website corresponding to the English bridmer, and it is evident that the act falls under “information” as referred to in Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act, and for the above purpose, the web Bromer sent URL containing the above English bromer to NS through the information and communications network, and in DNS again sent the web Bromer by giving the IP address corresponding to the four domain names to the above bromer’s address to the web Bromer’s designated site. Since the Defendants’ act of this case goes through the process of accessing the above bromer’s web address to the above dromer’s site, the Defendants’ act of this case constitutes an “information” under Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act, and the Defendant’s act of which the above dromer’s normal contact with the above dromer’s Internet address and thus, constitutes an original dromer’s access to the above 5 Internet address.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing on the ground of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.: (a) from January 2001, entered only the Korean short language into the Internet web slaber’s address entry, but instead, (b) instead of directly connecting the word to a specific Internet site of an individual or organization that registered the word in advance, Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., a corporation operating a business of the name “Internet Key Service” in the manner of receiving fees, etc. for the registration of its short language from the relevant individual or organization; (c) Defendant 1, the director of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., and Defendant 2, as the representative director of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., jointly operates Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.; and (d) Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, upon the request of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., Ltd., who developed the pller program (before the

Defendant 5’s “Internet Key Services” provides “PPS program” (PPPPG-in Process) by directly setting up on the Internet user’s personal computer and linking it to the relevant Internet site. From January 2004, Defendant 5 began to provide services similar to Defendant 5’s “Internet Key Services” by many flexible competitors, such as Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3, etc., and did not take advantage of the competition. As such, Defendant 5’s program without permission to change the business environment of the competitor without permission and including the function of Korean language source information transmitted from computers using the Internet server to the competitor company, it is necessary to expand Defendant 5’s “Internet Key Services” under the judgment of the judgment that it is necessary to expand the business base of Defendant 5’s “business base.”

1. Defendant 1 and 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 6 (Professionals)

Between February 27, 2004 and February 16, 2005, Defendant 5, in the office located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Jeondong (number omitted), Defendant 5, Defendant 5, and Defendant 5, in fact, in the web slaber program for the “Internet Key Services” of Defendant 5, Defendant 5, or MY Starer program, etc. (the name was different in accordance with the program distribution website; hereinafter in this context, both Defendant 5, for convenience, was the program) unlike the program’s ordinary development:

① If the program is discovered by searching whether each pluger program of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 is installed in the course of installing the program, the program cannot function as a normal Korean short language language service by making a single clicker’s clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker cl.

(2) When the installation of the relevant program has been continuously supervised whenever the relevant program is carried out, and the program is discovered, the relevant program shall be modified: (1) the record information shall be modified as described; (2)

③ From the end of May 2004 to the beginning of December 2004 of the same year, the Korean language language recorded in the address of the competitor from Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., voluntarily changed part of the processed information, and arbitrarily transferred the Korean short language information to Defendant 5’s server rather than the competitor’s server (one-name DNS response lawsuit alteration function) without permission (one-name DNS response lawsuit alteration function). In addition, the UDRL (Korean 1,2 omitted, etc.) was provided through a computer to prevent voluntary transfer of the Internet website address of Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd. (one-name DNS response lawsuit alteration function), which included a standard indicating the location of all kinds of information in W-W of the Internet, and the type of services to be connected, the location of server, DNA, file name, and so on.

④ From the end of May 2004 to the end of February 16, 2005, the term “Internet Key Services” of Defendant 5 corporation is a normal service, and Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2’s Korean short language services are abnormal issues when installing and using these programs, and the program is distributed to Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3, Ltd., Ltd., on each computer in which the program is installed, and the program contains the function of blocking the program’s business operation by means of the so-called API rearing method, etc., but it also includes the function of blocking the program’s business operation, such as the program’s operation. However, it is found that Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3, etc. were not operated by the electronic network, and the Internet address of Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, which is one of the Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd., without any change in the number of digital digital networks.

2. Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 are recruited with Nonindicted 7 (Defendant 5’s head of the marketing team) in collusion:

The Defendant 5 corporation office from February 17, 2005 to October 14 of the same year, and Defendant 5 corporation’s plug program distributed for the same period, unlike the usual plug program, at the Defendant 5 corporation office from February 17, 2005 to October 14 of the same year:

① Each competitor company, including Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 4, used a method of API posting to block the function of each competitor’s program with respect to the function of Korean short language services and the function of treating the music program of Nonindicted Co. 1’s △△△△ program;

② From February 17, 2005 to April 1, 2005, streetlury order related to the operation of these programs is prevented by using a method of API rearing, thereby blocking the function of the program for the program of Nonindicted Co. 2, which is embodied on the basis of the operating function of the program, and also blocking the malicious treatment function of the program for the program of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd.

③ From February 17, 2005 to early April 2, 2005, Defendant 5’s plug program, when automatically recovering from Defendant 5’s plug file (where Defendant 5’s plug program is deleted, the file that automatically connects the server of Defendant 5, Defendant 5, Defendant 5, and Defendant 5’s plug program installation file, “the automatic restoration function, etc.,” which is installed after getting off the plug program installed, shall be deleted.

④ From February 17, 2005 to April 2, 2005, it seems that, even if Defendant 5 issued an order to delete the program of Defendant 5, through the function of removing the program of the window traffic control board, it appears that Defendant 5’s program was deleted from the external view. Of the program of Defendant 5, the protective log file is not deleted. Although the program of Defendant 5, when the computer is reconstructed, the program includes the function of accessing Defendant 5’s server and downloading the installation file after downloading the installation file, Defendant 5’s “Internet key service” is a normal service, and it is not possible for Defendant 5, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, to distribute the program to prevent the installation and use of the program, and each of the program installed by Defendant 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 2, and each of the computer users, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, Defendant 5, Nonindicted 2, and each of the program installed.

The distribution of protective cap files that obstruct the operation of the information and communications system, and interferes with the operation of each of the services provided in Korean short language by a deceptive scheme to Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 4;

3. Defendant 5 Company:

A. If the Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., located in the office of the Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, from the end of May 2004 to the beginning of December of the same year monitoring that the URL included in the English slab (English 1, 2 omitted, etc.) of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd. was entered in the address entry ledger, then it would damage URL information transmitted by an information and communications network by arbitrarily converting it into the main page (Internet site address omitted) of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1 Co., Ltd. to the URL and forcing it to the first place.

B. From February 17, 2005 to April 1 of the same year, at the office of Defendant 5 corporation, Defendant 2 and Defendant 1, the representative director and director of the Defendant company, distributed the protective boiler files that obstruct the operation of the information and communications system, etc., as shown in Section 2-4 of the holding.

The summary of the evidence recognized by this court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

· Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 62 Subparag. 4 and Article 48(2) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007); Article 30 of the Criminal Act

- Defendant 1, 2

Article 62 Subparag. 6 and Article 49 of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 30 of the Criminal Act

- Defendant 5 Corporation

Articles 66, 62 Subparag. 4, 48(2), 62 Subparag. 6, and 49 of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each fine;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (excluding Defendant 5 Company)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The ultimate objective of the crime of this case was to create their own operating profits by excluding the competitive company's means of business, and this act was an act that is not fair to directly compromise the competitive company's business, which caused inconvenience to the general Internet users who are not superior to the dispute between the competitors due to the crime of this case. However, it appears that the other competitors had engaged in competition in the same industry in the same manner, such as arbitrarily eliminating the defendants' Hangul service program, etc. The defendants removed the above function and endeavored to agree with other competitors. The defendants had no history of punishment and are expected to normally conduct their business activities, and in the case of defendants 4 and 3, the defendants 4 and 3 did not engage in the business of providing Korean key services, and only the business of developing the program upon request for development.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that “Defendant 1, 2, and 5 Co., Ltd. conspired with Nonindicted 6, from the end of May 2004 to the beginning of December of the same year, Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the office of the Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., and Defendant 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3 Co., Ltd., who installed a competitive company’s fluor program in his address, entered some of the information processed by Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.’s fluorg program in the above competition company’s address and damaged the processed information in each competitive company’s fluorg program, which was transmitted by the information and communication network, by arbitrarily changing the program into Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.’s flugian program to the Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.’s server, not the above competition company’s server.” As seen in Article 325(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, this is not guilty when there is no proof of criminal facts.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of interference with the processing of each computer, etc. in collusion with Nonindicted 6 was as follows: “The Defendants 1 and 2 interfered with each Internet user’s use of the program, which was installed in collusion with Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3, without properly notifying the function as set forth in Paragraph 1 at the time of original adjudication, and distributed the program to an unspecified number of users without properly notifying it; and each computer in which the program is installed, prevents the use of the program from normally operating or installing it; by damaging the Korean short language information transmitted through the information and communications network; thereby causing interference with the processing of information by entering an unlawful order into the computer or by any other means; thereby preventing the use of the program by each Internet user’s use of the program; ② Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 conspired with Nonindicted 7 and each Internet user’s use of the program; and each Internet user’s use of the program, which was installed in each of the Nonindicted 1, 3, and 5, Nonindicted 2000.

2. The public health stand, this part of the facts charged, which prevents the Internet users from using or installing the pluger program of Defendant 5 company in a normal condition by allowing the Internet users to use or install the pllerer program of the competition company, thereby hindering the Internet users’ use of the Internet. It is not possible to specify the specific work by preventing the Internet users from using or normally using the flick service program of their competition company on their own computer, and it constitutes affairs or business continuously engaged in their social status and constitutes a business subject to protection under the Criminal Act. Thus, this part of the facts charged is null and void in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the judgment dismissing the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be sentenced, but as long as each crime of interference with business is found guilty, the judgment dismissing the prosecution shall not be sentenced separately in the order.

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Act-X and wind users are developed by microfrat companies for the convenience and easy use of the Internet, and the documents, etc. written out by existing application programs are available as they are for access to the Web. If the computer users agree to the installation of the program, only the name of the company that produced the program is simply indicated, and the program is not clearly explained, but also the method in which the program is installed under the condition that the installation process does not appear on the monitor.

2) The method of monitoring information on the Korean short language, which is entered by the Internet user in the access to the address of the Internet service provider, is to connect to the relevant website by monitoring information on the Korean short language, which is, the Korean short language, entered by the Internet user in the access to the address, is sent to the ISO server via an information and communications network connected to the user’s computer, and then monitoring the Korean short language information, which is transmitted to the ISO server under the partnership with the relevant ISO, was circulated when the information was circulated, compared and searched with the Korean short language database, which was established in advance in the Nonindicted Co. 1’s server, and then, if the Korean short language is registered in the database, it would be directly connected to the relevant Korean short language website, and otherwise, if not, it would result in the user’s computer using the search service of the designated Internet search service company in advance.

3) The method of converting the domain name of a server into the Korean short language before the entry of the Korean short language, which is not a domain name, after being registered in the Urrl Sarch Hok of Leak at the time of establishment.

Note 4) The method of enabling a program to be carried out along with the web bHO’s implementation at the time of installation with a program that is registered in the Lebrid BHO and that would result in the server when entering Korean short language into the Republic of Korea.

5) A server computer that plays a role in changing the domain name made readily accessible to computers to IP addresses that can be processed by computers, including DNAomain Nme Sver, and the domain name made readily accessible to people.

6) The unique distinctive address given on the Internet with all communication networks connected to the Internet and with the unique distinctive address given to the computer connected to that communication network, in which the computer can process in response to the transfer of the domain name.