The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, computer, etc. fraud is used.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's sentencing division (the first instance court: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months);

B. Prosecutor 1) Since the Defendant intrudes into the toilet column used by the victim with a sexual purpose, the offense of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is established. Even if it is not so, the Defendant’s act of intrusion constitutes the offense of intrusion, but the judgment of the court below which did not determine it is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) Sentencing and light of judgment.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Grounds for the 1st destruction (negative): The nature of the crime of fraud by the use of computers, etc. (negative) ex officio, we examine as to the fraud by the use of computers, etc. as provided in paragraph (2) of the facts charged among the cases of the lower court 2019 order24

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that "the defendant obtained property benefits by inputting the information without authority to the vending machine which is the data processing unit, such as computer, etc., by purchasing nine drinking water in an amount of 11,400 won, using the e-mail card, which was 11,400 won, from August 8, 2019."

The object of the crime of fraud by use of computers, etc., which is defined in Article 347-2 of the Criminal Code, is limited to property interests, not property.

Since the Defendant received nine drinking water, the Defendant was subject to property.

The crime of larceny, which takes possession of drinking water against the will of the manager of a vending machine, is established, apart from the establishment of larceny, which takes possession of drinking water under the control of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Ra3119 Decided February 21, 2019). Furthermore, the Defendant’s property interest that is exempted from the payment of the cost of drinking water that is not actual drinking water.