The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the instant server owned by a defendant, other than the victim, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful to allow the defendant to delete the above server’s password. Furthermore, the instant server did not have an Internet education program for the victim, and thus, it does not interfere with the victim’s business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the representative E of the victimized Company, at the police station, made a statement to the effect that it would not access the server other than the manager of the victimized Company by setting up a password after inserting the modified image program (Evidence No. 453, 455, 457). The court below appeared as a witness in the court of the court below, and made a statement to the effect that approximately two months of the above server were required to put the damaged Company products again (the trial record No. 60, 76 pages) due to the crime of this case (the trial record No. 60, 76 pages). ② At the time, I appeared as a witness at the court of the court below to the effect that the Defendant was unable to access the data that was put on work due to the crime of this case, and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the password was removed from the server of this case through e-mail and made a statement to the court below to the effect that the server No. 83 was deleted (the evidence of this case. 80).