Defendant 1 and 11 others

Defendants and Prosecutor

The letter-type, Lee Sung-hoon(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(1

Law Firm Cr. and 11 others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da834, 1236 (Consolidated), 1633 (Consolidated) Decided June 28, 2013

Defendant 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12 are reversed among the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below against Defendant 7 (Defendant 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court).

Defendant 3 is punished by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for three years and six months, by imprisonment for defendant 5 and 7, by imprisonment for two years and six months, by imprisonment for two years and six months, by imprisonment for defendant 8, by imprisonment for three years, by ten years, and by imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for three years for Defendant 5, and for four years for Defendant 8 and 12 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant 5 and 12 shall each order the community service for 200 hours, the probation to Defendant 8 for 2 years, and the community service for 200 hours.

Defendant 1, 2, and 9 (Defendant 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court) and the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 1, 6 (Defendant 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 7, and 11 (Defendant 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court) are dismissed, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12

1) Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 12’s assertion of mistake of facts

A) Defendant 1

Defendant 1 did not lead the crime. Of the facts charged, Defendant 1’s use of computers, etc. and fraudulent act using computers, etc. (Article 4 and 5 of the Criminal Act at the time of original adjudication) around October 2007 (Article 4 of the Criminal Act) and around March 2008, Defendant 1 did not participate in the crime (Article 4 and 5 of the Criminal Act). around June 2010, Defendant 1 did not participate in the crime (Article 13 of the Criminal Act).

B) Defendant 2

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, around April 2010, Defendant 1, the principal offender, was omitted, and Defendant 2 was not the principal offender, with respect to the use of computers, etc., “Fuljin-gun’s Integrated Athletics Reinforcement Work” and the obstruction of bidding (Article 12 of the facts charged at the time of original trial).

C) Defendant 3

Of the facts charged against Defendant 3, the fact that Defendant 3 attempted to commit fraud using computers, etc. (Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act) around September 2012, 201 is not the fact that: (a) the establishment of the Gimcheon National Sports Center (Geocheon National Sports Center);

D) Defendant 5

① As to the whole facts charged against Defendant 5, Defendant 1 did not participate in the entire public offering (the Defendant 5 asserts this part by misapprehending the legal doctrine), and ② around June 2009, Defendant 1 was unaware of hacking in relation to the use of computers, etc. and the obstruction of bidding (the crime No. 8 (2) table of crime No. 1 at the time of original adjudication).

E) Defendant 9

(4) Of the facts charged against Defendant 9, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, the fact that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were involved in the maintenance of computers, etc., Cheongcheon-gun 2,000, 1 and 3,000, 1 and 3,000,000, 1 and 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

F) Defendant 12

Of the facts charged against Defendant 12, the facts charged by Defendant 12 were normal bids by using computers, etc. around October 2007, 207, including the “Cancheon-gun, the Cancheon-gun, the Cancheon-gun, the Cancheon-gun, the Cancheon-gun, and around March 2008 (criminal facts No. 4 and 5).

G) Accordingly, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles

Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12, among the facts charged in the instant case, with respect to the fraud by the use of computers, etc. or attempted fraud by the use of computers, etc., there was no data processing generating property benefits or no property benefits directly accrue due to data processing, and there was no risk of damage or damage to the local government that is the victim, and the successful bid itself is not property benefits.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12’s assertion of unfair sentencing

The punishment (Defendant 1: 7 years of imprisonment; 3 years of imprisonment; 4 years of imprisonment; 4 years of imprisonment; 5, 7 years of imprisonment; 3 years of imprisonment; 4 years of imprisonment; 4 years of imprisonment; 4 years of imprisonment; 9: imprisonment with prison labor; 4 years of imprisonment; 10, 12: 3 years of imprisonment) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) On January 2007 about Defendant 1, 6, and 7, the assertion of mistake of facts as to the use of computer, etc. and Defendant 11 (not guilty part of original trial)

According to the statement of Defendant 6 and 7, this part of the facts charged can be recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant 1,6, and Defendant 11 not guilty of the facts charged against Defendant 1, 6, and 7 around January 2007. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant 6 and 8’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant 6 and 8 (Defendant 6: 2 years of probation, 1 year of probation, 120 hours of community service, 8: 2 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 1 year of probation, 2 years of probation, 200 hours of community service) is too unfunied and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 12)

1) Defendant 1

① As to the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, Defendant 1 is acknowledged to have led Defendant 1 to commit this case, according to the following facts: (a) since around 2006, Co-defendant 14, Defendant 3,6,8, etc. were employed in order to continuously take charge of the development and installation of malicious programs; (b) Nonindicted 1, Defendant 2, etc. while using scamphones; (c) linked with other organizations of hacking; and (d) the fact that Defendant 1 had led to the destruction of evidence; and (e) the fact that other organizations of hacking were destroyed; and (e) the fact that Defendant 1 had led to the destruction of evidence such as the destruction of computer hard diskss after the outbreak of this case; and (e) the fact that Defendant 1 had no direction to commit this case’s crime in order to obtain information from the North 1,000-gun Construction Work and the fact that Defendant 2 had no responsibility to obtain information from the North 2,000-gun Construction Work around October 2007.

2) Defendant 2

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, around April 2010, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 had played a leading role in this part of the case, and therefore, Defendant 2 acquired property benefits by making Defendant 2 conspired in the information processing device, such as computer, etc., input data processing without authority, and interfered with bidding process by means of deception and bidding (Article 12 of the facts charged at the time of original trial). Defendant 2 stated that Co-defendant 6 of the original judgment through Co-Defendant 3 of the original judgment was to receive an illegal successful bid. Defendant 1 through Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 3, and Defendant 6 of the original judgment also made a statement corresponding thereto). As such, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 acted in this part of the case. Accordingly, Defendant 2 conspired in the information processing device, such as computer, etc., and obtained property benefits and harmed the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means. Thus, Defendant 2’s allegation in this part is without merit.

3) Defendant 3

Of the facts charged against Defendant 3, around September 2012, in full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant 3, along with Defendant 1, etc. at the time of the instant judgment, participated in the hacking program work; (b) Defendant 1, etc. at the time of the instant judgment; (c) informed Defendant 4 of this part of the deposit amount; (d) Defendant 3 stated that the deposit amount was failed to be awarded; (e) Defendant 3 could have been informed to Defendant 4 if he did not have his office; (e) Defendant 4 received the amount from Defendant 1 and notified Defendant 10 of the amount to Defendant 4; and (e) Defendant 11 stated that Defendant 3 would have been informed to Defendant 4; and (e) Defendant 4 received information from Defendant 1 and notified Defendant 10 of the amount to Defendant 10; and (e) Defendant 3, in collusion with the lower judgment, attempted to obtain property benefits by entering and changing information in the information processing device, such as computer, etc. without authority, and thus, Defendant 3’s allegation in this part of this is without merit.

4) Defendant 5

① As to the whole facts charged against Defendant 5, there is a combination of two or more co-defendants who jointly process with the information processing system in order to realize the crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if there is a combination of doctors' intentions successively or implicitly through several persons, there is a public offering relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 201). Defendant 5 received an illegal successful bid and paid the price. Defendant 1 et al. delivered the price to Defendant 5 in sequence through a malicious program. Defendant 1 et al., Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1, and Defendant 5 et al., Defendant 2 and Defendant 5 stated that the amount of money paid by Defendant 5 would have been delivered to Defendant 1 again, and Defendant 5 would not have engaged in this part of the facts charged by conspiracy with Defendant 1, 209, Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 stated that there was no way to obtain a bid offer from Defendant 2, 2009.

5) Defendant 9

A) As to the use of computers, etc. and the obstruction of tendering (Article 7 of the Criminal Act at the time of original adjudication), Defendant 9 recognized this part of the investigation agency, and Defendant 1 also made statements corresponding thereto (Article 16 of the Statement corresponding thereto) by around March 2009, it is recognized as an illegal bidding.

B) According to ① around June 209, Seongbuk-gun’s “Lifetime Athletic Facilities Construction Work”, ② around July 2009, Seobuk-si’s “Saeng-si Construction Work”, ③ On July 28, 2009, the “Mae-Ansan Forest Park Construction Work”, ④ around November 2009, the “Masan-si Maintenance Work”, ⑤ around April 201, Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 2’s bid price was provided to the said Nonindicted 9-gun’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 2’s bid price, ⑤ Defendant 2’s bid price was provided to the said Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 3’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 2’s Nonindicted Party 3’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 2’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 1’s Nonindicted Party 2’s bid.

C) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Co-defendant 1, 201 (3) notified Co-defendant 2 of the bid price to the above 9, 201, 30, 400, 9,000,000,000 won to the above 9,00,000,000 won to the above 9,00,000,000,000,000 won to the above 9,000,000,000,0000 won to the above 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to the above 9,000,000,000,000 won to the above 9,000,000,000,000,000 won to the above 9,00,000,000,00.

D) Also, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier that the aforementioned facts did not have the overall mother process, even if they were in the process, a combination of doctors is formed in the order of multiple persons or impliedly, and a conspiracy is established. Defendant 9, as stated in the judgment of the court below, conspired with the information processor, such as computer, etc. to enter and alter information without authority, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits, and attempted to impair the fairness of bidding or obtain pecuniary benefits, and thus, Defendant 9’s allegation on this part is without merit.

6) Defendant 12

In light of the following facts: (a) around October 2007, Defendant 12 recognized that this part of the case was an illegal bid at an investigative agency; and (b) Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 also recognized that this part of the case was an illegal bid; (c) around March 2008, Defendant 12 can sufficiently recognize the fact that he acquired pecuniary benefits by entering and altering information in the information processing device, such as computer, etc., in collusion with the decision of the court below; and (d) around March 2008, Defendant 12 acquired pecuniary benefits by using a computer, etc. (e.g., this part of the allegation by Defendant 12 is without merit.

B. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12)

The crime of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act is established by deceiving another person and acquiring property or benefits from property based on defective intent. The essence of fraud is to acquire property or benefits from property by deception and thereby infringe on the other party's property. Therefore, it does not require that the other party actually suffers property loss (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12928, Dec. 9, 2010). It is sufficient that there is a proximate causal relation between deception and the victim's property disposal act. If there is a delivery of property by deception, it does not affect the establishment of fraud immediately, even if reasonable price has been paid, or there is no damage to all property of the victim. This does not affect the conclusion of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1040, Jul. 9, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1040, Jul. 14, 200). This is the same as the case where the defendants are not entitled to receive property damage by means of hacking or alteration of a bid price in advance by creating a computer or other property damage.

C. On January 2007, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant 1, 6, and 7, as to Defendant 1, 6, and 7, and Defendant 11 (not guilty part of the original trial)

Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 acknowledged this part of the facts charged at the court below, and Defendant 6 made a statement at an investigative agency to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and Defendant 6 was merely 7,697 won in this part of the bid and the difference between the bid price and the bid price, and there is room to see that the difference between the upper 4 and the remainder is definite in the frequency analysis of multiple frequency of lottery numbers, etc., Defendant 1, 6, 7, and 11 conspired to commit a crime by using computers, etc. around January 2007, and it is somewhat doubtful that Defendant 6 did not commit a crime by using computers, etc.

However, as the court below properly states, in full view of the following: ① Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 are merely assistants of the malicious program developer; ② Defendant 1, the main mother and child, denied this part of the facts charged at the investigative agency; ③ Defendant 2, who is in charge of the interference with the successful bidder and the receipt of the consideration at the time, denies this part of the facts charged; ③ Defendant 2, who is in charge of the interference with the successful bidder at the time, and Defendant 11, who is selected as the illegal successful bidder, consistently stated that Defendant 11 was the normal successful bidder at the time; and ③9, who is consistently stated that the above Defendants acquired property benefits by entering and changing information in the information processing device, such as computer, etc. around January 207, in collusion with this part of the facts charged, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the above Defendants acquired property benefits without authority, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above Defendants of this part of the facts charged is acceptable, and the prosecutor's allegation in this part is without merit.

D. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

1) As to Defendant 1, 2, and 9

The crime of this case is not only deprived of other construction companies' opportunity for successful bid by hackinging the comprehensive national electronic procurement system of the Public Procurement Service, but also seriously impeding the fairness of competition in government-funded construction works, and further, undermining the public confidence in the fair bid competition system of the country, the nature of the crime is very poor, and it is necessary to impose strict liability on the Defendants of this case.

Although Defendant 1 was a first offender in this case, the above Defendant was responsible for the crime of this case, such as leading the development and distribution of malicious programs in this case and attracting the construction companies through Nonindicted 1, etc. to illegal abortion. In addition, the period and frequency of spreading malicious programs are heavy, and the period, frequency, and amount of illegal successful bid are very important (from November 8, 2006 to September 2012, 2012). Nevertheless, the above Defendant denied the facts leading by himself and denies some criminal facts rather than seriously resisting his mistake, and the above Defendant attempted to delete the data on the server before November 8, 2012 and attempted to abolish the above conditions of punishment under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the argument of this case.

In the case of Defendant 2, the number of illegal successful tender does not exceed three times, and the first crime is committed, but the amount of illegal successful tender is not more than 5 billion won in total, and the above Defendant has a significant role and degree of participation, such as e-mail and delivery of bid amount, not simple storage for the crime of this case, and the above Defendant was involved in the e-mail attached with the malicious code to Co-Defendant 3 around June 2007. After search and seizure of the above Defendant’s office on November 8, 2012, it appears that the Defendant tried to conceal the crime of this case by guiding investigators as Defendant 1’s office while guiding investigators to close to his office. Nevertheless, the above Defendant denies some facts, rather than seriously opposing his mistake, and denies the legal principles, and accordingly, it appears that the above Defendant has been punished by imprisonment with prison labor for several years as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

Although there is no criminal history exceeding fine in the case of Defendant 9, the above Defendant was involved in the instant crime, such as physical inspection and delivery of bid amount, etc. in the instant crime, the said Defendant participated in the 17 illegal successful bid by all of the 16 illegal successful bidders, including the 16 illegal successful bid amount that the 16 illegal successful bid amount reached the 16.8 billion won in total, and the profits accrued therefrom are deemed to be significant. Nevertheless, the above Defendant denies most of the facts rather than seriously resisting his mistake, and considering the various sentencing factors stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable for the above Defendant to be sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years.

Therefore, this part of the defendant 1, 2, and 9's argument is without merit.

2) As to Defendant 6

The crime of this case only deprived other construction companies of the opportunity to award the contract by hackinging the integrated national electronic procurement system of the Public Procurement Service, but also seriously impeding the fairness of government-funded construction competition, thereby undermining the trust of the public in the fair bid competition system of the nation, and thus causing a large-scale damage to the quality of the crime. On the other hand, Defendant 6 is committing the crime of this case, which is in violation of the depth of mistake, as it is the first offender, and its role and degree of participation, and its circumstances leading to the crime of this case, including various sentencing conditions as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are revealed in the argument of this case, are considered to be unfair since the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. The prosecutor's assertion in this part is without merit.

3) As to Defendant 8

Defendant 8 does not have any force to commit the crime of this case, and there is no force to commit the crime of this case. On the other hand, the crime of this case only deprived of other construction companies of the opportunity to award the bid price by hackinging the integrated national electronic procurement system of the Public Procurement Service, and seriously impeding the fairness of the government-funded construction competition, thereby undermining the public confidence in the fair competition system of the country, and thus making the quality of the crime considerably poor, and over a long-term period. Defendant 8 has developed malicious programs and participated in this case. Defendant 17 illegal successful bidders were involved in this case (one of them was attempted) and the amount was also 16 billion won and the amount was also 16 billion won, and the prosecutor's participation in the crime of this case was likely to cause the crime of this case to be committed on or around January 2013, and the prosecutor's participation in the above 41 through 81 of the Criminal Act as to Defendant 1's role in the sentence of this case, and the defendant's allegation in this case is justified.

4) As to Defendant 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12

A) The instant crime was committed not only deprived of other construction companies of the opportunity to award a contract by hackinging the comprehensive national electronic procurement system of the Public Procurement Service, but also seriously impairing the fairness of the government-funded construction competition, thereby undermining the public confidence in the fair bid competition system of the country, and thus, the nature of the crime was very heavy in that it was committed on a large scale over a very long-term basis.

B) In addition, in the case of Defendant 3, from February 2008 to March 2, 2008, Defendant 3 had the bidder 140 p.m. with the PC 140 p.m. from July 201 to November 201 of the same year, Defendant 3 had the bidder PC 232 p.m. install the m. code for bidders, and directly participate in installing the m. code to the PC for the finance officer of the Sungsung Military Agency, and the above Defendant did not be somewhat liable. The above Defendant, on November 8, 2012, had the deletion program operated by connecting the m. to the server connected with the m. code by remote connection with the m. from Defendant 1’s instruction so that the deletion of the server data on Nov. 8, 2012, and attempted to abolish the m. m. to abolish the m., and attempted to abolish the m. m. m.

However, in full view of the fact that there is no record of crime exceeding a fine, and the profit gained from the crime of this case is not significant as 30 million won, and the role and degree of participation of the above defendant as well as the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as shown in the argument of this case, two years and six months of imprisonment, which the court below sentenced to the above defendant, are somewhat heavy.

C) In the case of Defendant 4, the Defendant directly participated in the installation of a malicious code on the PC for finance officers of the Sung-gun Office and on the PC for finance officers at the time of termination of the Korea Water Resources Management Corporation. Defendant 1 received CDs containing the download file of the malicious code from Defendant 1, and participated in Co-Defendant 10, 9, and 11 of the lower judgment in the installation of a malicious code on the PC for finance finance officers of the 9 military and viewing, such as Jeonhae-gun and viewing, and Co-Defendant 10, and 9 of the lower judgment, Defendant 10 and Co-Defendant 9 of the lower judgment actively participated in the installation of a malicious code on the PC for finance officers of the Korea Water Resources Management Corporation. In light of the fact that the Defendant took part in the Defendant’s act of destroying the malicious code to 232 unit of the PC for each bidder by delivering the ID file to 210,00,000 from the 3rd of the construction company’s illegal bid.

However, in full view of the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that the above defendant has no criminal records exceeding fines, and all facts are recognized except for disputes over legal principles, the above defendant has contributed KRW 10.5 million to society in the trial of the party, and the illegal successful bid amount (total amount of KRW 4.05 billion) in which the above defendant was involved, as well as the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the imprisonment with prison labor for the above defendant is somewhat excessive for four years.

D) In the case of Defendant 5 and 12, Defendant 5 stated that the frequency and amount of the illegal successful bid in this case were more than KRW 7.5 billion in total six times, and Defendant 12 was also more than KRW 5.1 billion in total on seven occasions, and Defendant 12 also took part in the installation of malicious code, such as the sticking of the USB Meritorious delivered by Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 to Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 stated that the amount of KRW 10 million in total was equivalent to the development cost of the illegal successful bid system around August 2006, Defendant 1 was 45), Defendant 5 and 12, who received from Defendant 12 as the illegal successful bid in this case, was directly denied the crime of this case, and Defendant 12 did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the fair competitive bid of the above Defendants, but did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

On the other hand, however, the above defendants have no criminal records exceeding fines, the role and degree of participation of the above defendants, the defendant 5 billion won in the trial of the party, and the defendant 12 contributed to society for the above defendants' 40 million won, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the period of detention, the role and degree of participation of the above defendants in the judgment of the court below as well as the fact that it is necessary to maintain equity by comparing the above defendants with other co-defendants in the judgment of this case, the period of detention, and the role and degree of participation of the above defendants in the judgment of the court below as stated in the argument of this case. In full view of the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of

E) In the case of Defendant 7, while participating in the development of the financial commissioner’s music program for PC and the bidder’s music program from February 2008 to March 2 of the same year, there are unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant actively participated in installing the malicious program to the financial PC and the bidder’s bidder’s tender for the construction company in Yongcheon-do, etc. from October 2009 to August 201, and the fact that the Defendant obtained a profit of KRW 100 million by allocating part of the profits with Defendant 1.

However, in full view of the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that Defendant 7, as a first offender, is against his mistake while committing the instant crime, the role and degree of participation of the said Defendant, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, as well as the circumstances leading to the instant crime, Defendant 7’s imprisonment with prison labor for the said Defendant is somewhat heavy for three years.

F) In the case of Defendant 10, there are unfavorable circumstances such as Defendant 10’s participation in the instant act of illegal successful bid, including that a construction company it operated in the instant case received three illegal successful biddings, and that the amount was 7.4 billion won or more, and that the said Defendant was 46 million won or more, and that the said Defendant was able to gain profits by receiving subcontracting in the course of illegal successful bid against other construction companies.

However, in full view of the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that Defendant 10 violated his mistake in the course of committing the instant crime, the role and degree of involvement of the said Defendant, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., Defendant 10, who committed the instant crime, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years, which the lower court sentenced to the said Defendant is somewhat excessive

G) Accordingly, Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 12’s assertion on this part and Defendant 7 and 10’s assertion are with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 12 and the appeal filed by the prosecutor against the defendant 8 is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below against the defendant 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12 and the judgment of the court below against the defendant 7 are reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment below against the defendant 7 are again ruled as follows. Since the appeal filed by the defendant 1, 2, and 9 and the prosecutor against the defendant 1, 6, 7, and 11 are without merit, each of them is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (However, since it is obvious that the decision of the court below was omitted on the 5th day of the judgment below, it is corrected ex officio by adding the guilty portion pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).

Of the lower judgment recognized by this court, the facts constituting the offense against Defendant 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 and the summary of the evidence thereof are the same as indicated in each corresponding column of the lower judgment, except for the correction of “not later than November 9, 2012” by “not later than October 24, 2012,” as stated in each corresponding column of the lower judgment, and thus, they are cited pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 3 and 7: Each Criminal Act; Articles 347-2, 30 (Fraud by Use of Computer, etc.); Articles 315, 30 (Interference with Tender), 352, 347-2, and 30 (Attempted Fraud by Use of Computer, etc.) of the Criminal Act; Articles 71 subparag. 4 and 48(2) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 9119 of Jun. 13, 2008); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 9119 of Jun. 13, 2008); Articles 26 and 27 of the Criminal Act; Articles 71 subparag. 9 and 48(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 9119 of Jun. 13, 2008)

Defendant 4 and 8: Articles 347-2, 30 (Fraud by Use of Computer, etc.), 315, 30 (Interference with Tender), 352, 347-2, and 30 (Attempted Fraud by Use of Computer, etc.) of the Criminal Act; Articles 71 subparag. 9, 48(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the crime No. 28 and 29 of the Criminal Act at the time of original adjudication; the spread of malicious program)

Defendant 5, 10, 12: Articles 347-2, 30 (Use of Computer, etc. Fraud) of the Criminal Act, Articles 315 and 30 (Interference with Tender) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Co-operation between the crime committed at the time of original adjudication and the crime of fraud by the use of computer, etc. under Articles 6 through 22 and 24)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Suspension of execution (Defendants 5, 8, 12);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Probation (Defendant 8);

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order to provide community service (defendants 5, 8, 12);

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act

Judges Jeon Soo-hun (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) 4478-4479 of the Criminal Investigation Records of 2012 No. 25897, and No. 17805 of the 2013 (hereinafter “Investigation Records”)

Note 2) 4471, 5100-51 of investigation records

Note 3) 400 pages, 4509-4510, 4512, 4969-4970 of the investigation records

Note 4) Investigation Records No. 5370-5371

Note 5) Investigation Records No. 557

Note 6) 5104, 5371-5374 of the investigation records

Note 7) 5423 to 5425, 5594 to 5595 of the investigation records

Note 8) Investigation Records No. 5595-5596 pages, 144, 1796-1800

Note 9) 4354 of investigation records

Note 10) 3528 of investigation records

Note 11) 4464-4465 of investigation records

Note 12) 4539 of investigation records

Note 13) 4892 of the investigation records

Note 14) Investigation Records No. 4691

Note 15) Investigation Records No. 5043-504, 5076

Note 16) 5369 of investigation records

Note 17) Investigation Records No. 5043-504, 5071, 5075, 50804 of Criminal Investigation Records No. 5089-5090 of Criminal Investigation Records of 2013

Note 18) 4549, 4554 of investigation records

Note 19) 4892-4893 of investigation records

Note 20) 4890 pages, in particular, regarding the investigation records: ① 4896, 4899, 4902-4903, 5074-5, 5086-5090, 5092, 5094, 5408-5409, 5409, 5409, 5409, 5412-5413 of the investigation records

Note 21) 513 of the investigation records No. 17804 of 2013

Note 22) Investigative Records No. 17804 of 2013, 5130

Note 23) Investigation Records No. 4707-4708

Note 24) Investigative Records No. 5043-504, 17804 of Criminal Investigation Record No. 5082, 5085, 5089 of Criminal Investigation Record No. 2013

Note 25) Investigation Records No. 3734-375, 5051-5052, 5057-5058 pages

Note 26) Investigation Records No. 5048-50, 5057-508

Note 27) Investigation Records No. 4463-464, 5048-50, 5053-5054, 5058 pages

Note 28) 4458 of investigation records

Note 29) 4549 of investigation records

Note 30) 4896, 5093, 5409, 5413 of the investigation records

Note 31) 403 to 4034 of investigation records

Note 32) Investigation Records No. 4026-4027

Note 33) 4539, 4549, 4553-4 pages of investigation records

Note 34) 4034 of investigation records

Note 35) 4526,5634 of investigation records

Note 36) 5632 of the investigation records

Note 37) Investigation Records No. 5367-5368, 5607-5608

Note 38) 5435-5436, 5606 of investigation records

Note 39) 4751 of the investigation records

Note 40) Investigation Records No. 3051-3052

Note 41) Investigation Records No. 4861

Note 42) 2642 pages, 4310-4311 of investigation records

Note 43) 3035 pages, 4310-4311 of investigation records

Note 44) Investigation Record No. 5009-5010

Note 45) 558-559 of investigation records

Note 46) 4551 to 4553 of investigation records