The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) ① The data necessary for the business of the victim company, among the data prepared by the defendant directly, have been engaged in back-to-door business of the defendant or transferred to the F and other employees, who are his successor, all of whom are not the defendant, and deleted only unnecessary data and personal data. As such, the defendant did not have any criminal intent to obstruct the business of the victim company, and the defendant's act did not interfere with the business of the

(2) Even if the defendant's act interferes with the business of the victim company, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the crime of interference with business as to whether the crime of interference with business is established, the intent of interference with business does not necessarily require the intent of the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing interference with another person’s business due to his or her own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also not only conclusive but also so-called willful negligence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410 Decided January 15, 2009). “Obstruction of business” in the crime of interference with business includes not only interference with a specific business itself, but also hindering the smooth progress of business performance (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767, May 14, 199). In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, the crime of interference with business includes not only interference with the specific business itself, but also hindering the smooth progress of business (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767, May 14, 199).

Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4228 Decided March 25, 2010