A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 5, 2018, at around 19:18, the Defendant offered that “C” of online game “C,” which was known to the victim B, was “a person who purchased D Influenite 100% of the D Influenite 100% of the D Influenite, and divided profits from the market price by selling it in secret.” As such, the Defendant accepted the Defendant’s consent by accessing the victim’s account to the victim and using the game money’s 23,400,000,000E, thereby doing funeral.

On the same day, at around 17:22, the Defendant connected the victim's account (i.e., Ig) by using the victim's ID and password at the victim's residence in Suwon-si F, Suwon-si, and had the victim cancelled the diving condition of an item worn in the character and sold it to a third party. For this purpose, when the victim requires the victim's identification number using a mobile phone, he shall pay a small amount of money equivalent to 10,000 won if he/she expands the item's slot machine to perform funeral, and upon receipt of the victim's identification number for small payment, he/she shall deliver it to the victim, and after having the victim transmitted the certification number, he/she sold the game item of KRW 2,930,00 in total at the market price of the above item and the market price of KRW 8,250,000, 165,300, 301, 300, 3000, 305, 300, 1000.

Accordingly, the defendant obtained a total of 4,103,750 won by inputting information into a computer and other information processing device without authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. B Legal statement;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning B;

1. The statements made by the victim, such as the I conversation, photographs transmitted to I, small-sum settlement charging records, screen pictures printed out of items, details of the use of the auction site, the list of the cancellation of seals of items, and details of damage, are consistent with specific investigative agencies from this Court to this Court, and are unreasonable or contradictory in light of the empirical rule.