The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court convicted Defendant 1 of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine as follows.

A) Legal doctrine-misunderstanding damage company’s contents of restoration of a email in the virtual account submitted by the misunderstanding company, and the reference contents to the virtual account are inadmissible as it is impossible to recognize its integrity and identity, and furthermore, the evidence created based on this is not admissible, and the other evidence alone is insufficient to prove the facts charged in the instant case.

B) The Defendant, as the head of the technological overall team of the Victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), is merely the first test of the “Memical delivery function” in the internal computer network of the damaged company before applying the “Memical transmission function” to the customer company. Moreover, the Defendant’s test function is distinguishable from the “Memical delivery function” as “Memical delivery function” as indicated in the instant facts charged.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who retired on December 31, 2012 while serving as the head of the technological overall team at the victimized company located in Busan-gu B.

No one shall damage another person's information processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network, or infringe, misappropriate, or divulge another person's confidential information.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as a computer manager of the victimized company, obtained the right to manage and access the mail server and the mail account, etc. at will, using the information and communication function of the video server (Ex U.S.) (Ex U.S.). From September 1, 2012, the Defendant used the information and communication function of the video server (Ex U.S.).