The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. A major damage company in the grounds for appeal is not obligated to pay the royalties for the use of the E (Rab) server, as a company which has acquired the entire business rights (including the ownership of the Raber) to E (including the ownership of the Raber) which is a golf Formula system system from the LAC, and has acquired the above business rights again from the LAF.

Considering the background leading up to the blocking of the server of this case, the method of exercising the right is beyond the permissible level and scope under the social norms, and thus, the crime of conflict is established.

In addition, the crime of interference with business is also established because the Defendant unilaterally obstructed the use of the server by unilaterally blocking the use of the server by the victim without legitimate legal procedures.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) around September 2010, the following circumstances (i.e., “A” corporation (hereinafter “F”) transferred EM to F corporation (hereinafter “C”); (b) there was no difference between the Rameral and the Rameral server in the development of Emeras; and (c) DB had not been separated from the Emeras’s server.

C Co., Ltd. agreed to separate the server and DB when the development of the camera was completed to F Co., Ltd., and allowed the access to the server, and did not separately claim the server user fee, etc.

② On October 2013 or around 2014, C transferred both the Ec scrap golf business license, server, and DB to J.

At present, the server and DB of JJ are co-owned by Eraer and Kameras, and it is difficult to separate them from them in terms of cost and technology.

3. The victim who acquired the E Rabre’s business license from F Co., Ltd. is entitled to access and use the server and DB according to the agreement between C and F Co., Ltd.

However, this is only the right to claim against C, a corporation.