Defendant 1 and 4

New salary class

Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by respective fines of KRW 20,00,000, Defendant 3 and 4 by fines of KRW 7,000,000, and Defendant 5 shall be punished by fines of KRW 10,00,00,00.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1, 2, and 5 were acquitted as to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, due to the damage to other persons’ information.

Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.: (a) from January 2001, entered only the Korean short language into the Internet web slaber’s address entry, but instead, (b) instead of directly connecting the word to a specific Internet site of an individual or organization that registered the word in advance, Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., a corporation operating a business of the name “Internet Key Service” in the manner of receiving fees, etc. for the registration of its short language from the relevant individual or organization; (c) Defendant 1, the director of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., and Defendant 2, as the representative director of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., jointly operates Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.; and (d) Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, upon the request of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd., Ltd., who developed the pller program (before the

Defendant 5’s “Internet Key Services” provides “PPS program” (PPPPG-in Process) by directly setting up on the Internet user’s personal computer and linking it to the relevant Internet site. From January 2004, Defendant 5 began to provide services similar to Defendant 5’s “Internet Key Services” by many flexible competitors, such as Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3, etc., and did not take advantage of the competition. As such, Defendant 5’s program without permission to change the business environment of the competitor without permission and including the function of Korean language source information transmitted from computers using the Internet server to the competitor company, it is necessary to expand Defendant 5’s “Internet Key Services” under the judgment of the judgment that it is necessary to expand the business base of Defendant 5’s “business base.”

1. Defendant 1 and 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 6 (Professionals)

Between February 27, 2004 and February 16, 2005, Defendant 5, in the office located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Jeondong (number omitted), Defendant 5, Defendant 5, and Defendant 5, in fact, in the web slaber program for the “Internet Key Services” of Defendant 5, Defendant 5, or MY Starer program, etc. (the name was different in accordance with the program distribution website; hereinafter in this context, both Defendant 5, for convenience, was the program) unlike the program’s ordinary development:

① If the program is discovered by searching whether each pluger program of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 is installed in the course of installing the program, the program cannot function as a normal Korean short language language service by making a single clicker’s clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker clicker cl.

(2) When the installation of the relevant program has been continuously supervised whenever the relevant program is carried out, and the program is discovered, the relevant program shall be modified: (1) the record information shall be modified as described; (2)

③ From the end of May 2004 to the early December 2004 of the same year, the Korean language language recorded in the address of the competitor from Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., were arbitrarily modified, and the Korean language language information was arbitrarily transferred to Defendant 5’s server rather than the competitor’s server (one-name DNS response lawsuit alteration function) without permission (one-name DNS response lawsuit alteration function). In addition, as a standard indicating the location of all kinds of information in W of the Internet, the type of services to be connected, the location of server, DNA name, file name, and so on to prevent voluntary movement from being provided through the computer’s auxiliary service (including the Internet address omitted).

④ From the end of May 2004 to the end of February 16, 2005, the term “Internet Key Services” of Defendant 5 corporation is a normal service, and the Korean short language services of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 are abnormal issues when installing and using these short language programs, and the program is distributed to Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 1, 22, and Nonindicted Co. 3, 2005, and the program is installed so as not to operate the program normally or interfere with the business affairs of each of the Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, and each of the Nonindicted Co. 3, 201, and each of the Nonindicted Co. 3, 201 through the website, including Defendant 5’s website, despite the function of blocking the program’s business operation by means of the API rearing.

2. Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 are recruited with Nonindicted 7 (Defendant 5’s head of the marketing team) in collusion:

The Defendant 5 corporation office from February 17, 2005 to October 14 of the same year, and Defendant 5 corporation’s plug program distributed for the same period, unlike the usual plug program, at the Defendant 5 corporation office from February 17, 2005 to October 14 of the same year:

① Each competitor company, including Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 4, used a method of API posting to block the function of each competitor’s program with respect to the function of Korean short language services and the function of treating the music program of Nonindicted Co. 1’s △△△△ program;

② From February 17, 2005 to April 1, 2005, streetlury order related to the operation of these programs is prevented by using a method of API rearing, thereby blocking the function of the program for the program of Nonindicted Co. 2, which is embodied on the basis of the operating function of the program, and also blocking the malicious treatment function of the program for the program of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd.

③ From February 17, 2005 to early April 2, 2005, Defendant 5’s plug program, when automatically recovering from Defendant 5’s plug file (where Defendant 5’s plug program is deleted, the file that automatically connects the server of Defendant 5, Defendant 5, Defendant 5, and Defendant 5’s plug program installation file, “the automatic restoration function, etc.,” which is installed after getting off the plug program installed, shall be deleted.

④ From February 17, 2005 to April 2, 2005, it seems that, even if Defendant 5 issued an order to delete the program of Defendant 5, through the function of removing the program of the window traffic control board, it appears that Defendant 5’s program was deleted from the external view. Of the program of Defendant 5, the protective log file is not deleted. Although the program of Defendant 5, when the computer is reconstructed, the program includes the function of accessing Defendant 5’s server and downloading the installation file after downloading the installation file, Defendant 5’s “Internet key service” is a normal service, and it is not possible for Defendant 5, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, to distribute the program to prevent the installation and use of the program, and each of the program installed by Defendant 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 2, and each of the computer users, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, Defendant 5, Nonindicted 2, and each of the program installed.

The distribution of protective mortar files that obstruct the operation of the information and communications system, and interference with the management of information by entering an unlawful order into a deceptive scheme, computer or other information processing device, such as a computer, or by causing interference to the management of information by any other means, thereby hindering the management of information, such as the provision of each Korean language language service by Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2

3. Defendant 5 Stock Company

From February 17, 2005 to April 1 of the same year, Defendant 5, the representative director, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 1, who are directors of the Defendant Company, distributed the protective mortar files that obstruct the operation of the information and communications system, etc., as shown in Section 2-4 of the holding.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 3 and 4;

1. Part of each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 8 and 9

1. The police interrogation protocol regarding Nonindicted 7

1. The seventh prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 (including Nonindicted 6's statement part)

1. Each statement made with respect to Nonindicted 10 and 11

1. The investigation report (the report on the arrival of a house in the company of Defendant 5), the investigation report (the report on the arrival of a house in the company of Defendant 5, the non-indicted 1, the report on the article related to the company of Defendant 5), the investigation report (the development contract that was distributed on March 3, 2004), the investigation report (the data related to the time of processing the HO's seat in the company of Defendant 5, the data related to the time of processing the HO's seat), and the investigation report (the attachment of the materials attached to

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 62 Subparag. 4 and Article 46(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant 5 Stock Company

Articles 66, 62 Subparag. 4, and 46(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.;

1. Selection of punishment;

Each fine (as the following is the same as the determination of the reasons for sentencing):

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (excluding Defendant 5 Stock Company)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (excluding Defendant 5 Company)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The assertion and determination of Defendant 1, 2, and 5 as well as his/her defense counsel (to examine only the legal part of the assertion submitted after the closing of pleadings)

A. As to interference with business

(1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is as follows.

As stated in the facts charged in this case, various technical measures taken by the Defendants, such as tin disposal of part of the HO information, API aftering, and the towering of protective mortar files do not differ from the function of the pller program, or the internal limit of the current system environment of the operation system by microfrt (IE) is not the Defendants intentionally intended to obstruct or limit the function of the other party’s program by intentionally eliminating or damaging the competition company’s program. In addition, the acts of the Defendants taking such technical measures constitute a defensive act against the measures to prevent unauthorized deletion and re-establishment of the company’s program by competition companies, which constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act under the Criminal Act, and at the same time, the acts of the obstructed competitors are unlawful to delete the Defendants’ programs, and thus, cannot be said to constitute a business subject to protection under the Criminal Act.

Shed Judgment

㈎ 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하면, 피고인들이 제작하여 배포한 플러그인 프로그램은 결국 경쟁사 프로그램의 명령어를 임의로 일명 주석 처리를 통하여 명령어를 임의 변형시켜 제대로 작동시키지 못하게 하는 한편 업데이트의 기능을 방해하여 결국 경쟁업체 프로그램의 기능이 정상적으로 작동하지 못하게 되고 결국 한글 인터넷키워드서비스를 제공하는 업무에 지장을 초래한 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있다. 설령 피고인들이 취한 위 기술적 조치 중 서로 상대방 프로그램의 작동을 방해하고 제한하는 가운데 일부 자기방어적인 조치가 포함되어 있다고 하더라도 앞서 인정되는 여러 사실관계를 종합해보면, 피고인들의 위와 같은 프로그램 제작 및 배포행위는 경쟁업체들의 업무를 방해하는 일환으로 행하여졌음을 부인할 수 없을 뿐 아니라, 소극적인 방어에 그치지 않고 더 나아가 경쟁업체의 프로그램의 기능을 제한하거나 방해함으로써 그 정상적인 기능의 작동 중단에 그 목적이 있었다고 할 것이므로 형법상 정당방어나 정당행위에 해당하지 않는다.

㈏ 그리고 피고인들이 위와 같은 여러 프로그램을 배포하는 과정에서, 일부 이용약관을 통하여 이용자들에게 피고인들의 프로그램을 다운로드 하는 경우 경쟁사의 프로그램이 작동되지 않거나 서비스의 이용이 중단될 수 있음을 알렸다고 하더라도 업무방해죄의 성립에 방해되는 것은 아니다.

B. As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Protection of Information by Prisoners of malicious programs

(1) Summary of the argument

As set forth in Article 2-4 of the Decision, the program circulated is not a computer virus, spawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawa, not a program that interferes with the normal business of the non-indicted 1 corporation, but it was judged that the website illegally deleted the Defendants’ pller program and it was only a function that interferes with the re-installation and that it was a site that performs a function that prevents the re-installation, and thus, it is intended to correct this function. Therefore, it is not a malicious program that may damage, destroy, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of an information and communications system, data, program, etc. as stipulated in Article 4

Shed Judgment

According to each of the above evidence, even if the defendants' program is for the defendants' Internet key service, it is evident that the program has the purpose of hindering the operation of the competition company's program, including the function of preventing or blocking the competition company from operating its normal function among the program. Thus, as long as the operation of the competition company's program is hindered, it does not constitute a malicious program that may interfere with the operation of the program under the above law.

C. In addition, the defendants argued to the effect that all acts committed from February 27, 2004 to February 16, 2005 (paragraph (1) at the time of sale) and acts committed from February 17, 2005 to October 14, 2005 (paragraph (2) at the time of sale) constitute a single crime. However, as stated in the holding, in order to develop the program as stated in Paragraph (1) at the time of distribution, and to respond to the distribution again, the defendants engaged in the development of a new program by requesting the production and distribution of a new program by participating in the defendant 4, 3, etc., the external program developer, and to respond to the distribution again, it can be evaluated that the new criminal intent has been realized. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that each act in the holding has a separate and substantive concurrent relationship rather than a single comprehensive crime.

2. Defendant 4 and Defendant 3 alleged that the production of a program with the same function as the facts indicated in the judgment was not intentional, or that there was no intention to distribute the program. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the fact of receiving the development request on the premise of distribution can be known, and there may be room for normal deliberation on the degree of such participation. As such, it cannot be denied even the point of dolusence on the distribution of the above Defendants.

1. The Defendants’ act of committing each of the instant crimes may be deemed to be relatively less than the level of illegality and criticism in a new environment where the legal predictability and environment are somewhat unclear. However, the ultimate objective of each of the instant crimes is to expand their business territory by excluding the means of business of the competitor, thereby creating business profits by expanding their business territory. This act is not only an illegal act that does not directly compromise the competitive company’s business, but also an illegal act that lacks the understanding of the technical aspect and is also an act that practically limits the general Internet users vulnerable to the system environment. For this reason, the Defendants’ act cannot be readily punished.

2. However, it appears that this dispute between the Defendants and the competitor appears to have been caused by the structural problems in Hangul under the IMO environment. Since the issue of this case, Defendant 1’s change appears to have persuasive power, Defendant 1’s restriction or blocking each other’s programs after the issue of this case removed all the function of hindering normal operation, and efforts are made for the practical awareness of other disputes that remains after the end of the lawsuit pending with some victims of the competitor, and in the future, respect each other’s business model and area. The defendants have no power to be specially punished so far, the number of business days of the Defendants, obstruction of business, and the degree of participation and role of the Defendants in the crime of this case, and all other circumstances shown in the record, and the defendants are also at the same time at the same time at the location of the victim so far, the defendants are expected to have made efforts to revitalize the use of the Korean language on the Internet, and each order should be determined and sentenced to a fine in the same way as each other, and each order shall be given an opportunity to contribute to society again through technical research and development in the future.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 5 conspired with Nonindicted 6 to move the Korean short language information to Defendant 5 server rather than the competitor’s server, and in addition, if it was found that Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3, etc. were to have entered the UR in the name of his address in collusion with Defendant 5’s office located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul at the end of May 2004 to the early December of the same year, the Defendant 5’s program for the “Internet Key Service” of the Defendant 5 Company, unlike ordinary flusing program, it is deemed that Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3, etc. were to have changed the Korean short language information in the name of his address by arbitrarily changing part of the information processed by each competitor company’s fluscing company to the Defendant 5 server, not the competitor’s server. In addition, if it was found that the URL information included in the name of address entry was to have been changed to the Internet address of each one’s website.

2. A summary of the facts charged in the above part of the facts charged, the defendants' arbitrary transformation of the Korean short language information processed by the competitor's program into the server of the defendant 5 company and unauthorized movement of the information to the server of the defendant 5 company and damage the Korean short language information transmitted by the information and communication network (the act of "if the defendants discovered the entry of the URL into the domicile entry ledger of the non-indicted 1 company into the domicile, the act of "the act of making the non-indicted 1 company's MRL transfer by voluntary transformation to URL does not seem to be included in the damage of the flag). The prosecutor seems to have damaged the Korean short language information transmitted by the information and communication network (the prosecutor's intent of indictment cannot be accurately known, but it can be inferred as above in light of the facts charged by the defendant 5 corporation who prosecuted the joint penal provisions).

3. Article 62 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that a person who has damaged another person's information or infringed, stolen, or divulged another person's secret in violation of Article 49 of the same Act, and Article 49 of the same Act provides that no person shall damage another person's information processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network, or infringe, stolen, or divulge another person's secret. Here, the information of another person is processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network, and it cannot be deemed that all information created by another person generally falls under the information and communications network. The information of another person's credit or personal information, etc., which is regarded as the object of equivalent protection, should be interpreted to be limited to the extent equivalent to, or corresponding to, "the confidential information of another person" or at least equivalent to, such information. However, it cannot be deemed that another person's personal information prepared by another person constitutes the content (where the above part of the facts charged are modified, there is room to view that the act constitutes a criminal restriction on another person's's's business.

4. Thus, since the charge of violating the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection against Defendant 1 and 2 among the charged facts of this case is not a crime or a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and as long as the charged facts against Defendant 1 and 2 are judged not guilty, the above part of the charged facts against Defendant 5 corporation, which was prosecuted pursuant to the

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the fact that interference with the business of each Internet user and interference with each of the computer users’ use of computers is as follows: ① Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with Nonindicted 6 to distribute the program to many unspecified Internet users without properly notifying the functions as indicated in the holding in the first case; ② Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3’s each program is distributed on each computer in which the program is installed without properly notifying the functions as indicated in the holding; and Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3’s each program is not operated or installed normally; and the Korean short language information transmitted through the information and communications network is damaged to make it impossible for the users to input an unlawful order or interfere with the information processing by any other means, such as a deceptive scheme or computer, thereby hindering each of the computer users’ respective computer-using businesses (the point where interference with the business of paragraph (1) of this Article), ② Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 to prevent the use of the program from being operated by each of the users of the computer, which is installed by each of the computer user.

2. However, if the aforementioned part of the facts charged excludes the part of the crime of interference with business which found guilty, the defendant eventually means that "the defendant interferes with each business relating to the Internet use or computer use of the Internet users who establish and use the Internet or computer users who use the Internet-based program of the competitor through the process as indicated in the judgment of ... ( without properly notifying a number of Internet users of the aforementioned circumstances, ..)." However, as long as the Internet or computer users in this context interfere with each business related to the use of the Internet or the use of the computer by causing any interference with the information processing concerning the use of the Internet, it cannot be said that each business related to the use of the Internet or the use of the computer is protected under the Criminal Act, nor can it be identified as the facts charged itself. Accordingly, since each of the facts charged in this part constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment dismissing the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be pronounced, or each order to dismiss the crime of interference with business.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Noh Tae-ok