Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall intrude into an information and communications network without legitimate access authority or beyond permitted access authority, and shall damage another person's information processed, stored, or transmitted through the information and communications network, or infringe, misappropriate, or divulge another person's confidential information.

However, around 01:00 on March 8, 2016, the Defendant accessed the “E” server, which is the educational program managed by the victim D using the Defendant’s computer, and deleted the database and account information stored in the server, thereby damaging other’s information.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of D, F and G;

1. A written petition;

1. - Data to close the sms of a restoration company and a suspect;

1. - Written estimate for recovery from a server;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written opinions by the complainant agent (including attached documents);

1. Article 71 (1) 11 and 49 of the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of a fine for negligence;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [The defendant and defense counsel claim that "damage" under Article 71(1)11 of the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. should be limited to the case where data acquired and damaged by accessing without legitimate authority, such as infringing on information and communications networks, etc. However, the above provision separates "damage to other person's information" and "act of impairing or divulging other person's secret," and "any other person's information" is not premised on the form of infringement. Thus, the above argument is rejected.