The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant had the authority to properly access the site of this case, and thus, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is unreasonable and erroneous.

2. Article 48(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is not a provision for protecting users' trust or interests, but a provision for protecting the stability of an information and communications network itself and the reliability of such information. Thus, in a case where a third party who is not a user authorized by a service provider connects to an information and communications network, whether the access authority exists shall be determined based on the access authority granted by the service provider. Even if the user consented to the use of an information and communications network by notifying the user of his/her ID and password and allowing the third party to use it, the use by the third party is limited to a person who directly uses the information and communications network or a person who acts for the user's interest, such as using it for the user's own interest, or if the service provider is deemed to have granted a third party the right to consent to use it, or if the service provider informed a third party of the situation that the service provider has allowed the service provider to use it, in principle, there is no consent from the service provider.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do870, Nov. 25, 2005). Based on the above legal doctrine, the Defendant was provided with the ID and password from F, a member of the instant site, based on the following.