[1] Whether an act of a person, who is not authorized to manage and operate an information processing unit, without permission, changing the ID and password of the manager entered into the information processing unit constitutes a crime of interference with disability affairs, such as a computer (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a university faculty member's act of accessing a web server without a right to manage and operate the web server due to a transfer order and changing the password of the web server manager without permission constitutes a crime of interference with disability affairs such as computer

[1] Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kwon Young-young

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do382 Delivered on March 10, 2006

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006No462 Decided September 8, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's determination on the premise that obstruction of business by a computer or any other special media record under Article 314 (2) of the Criminal Act is established by destroying an information processing device, such as a computer, or special media record, such as electronic records, or by inputting a false information or improper order into the information processing device, or by causing trouble to the information processing device by other means. Any act of a person who is not authorized to manage and operate the information processing device without permission to change the ID and password of a manager, which was entered into the information processing device, by inputting an improper order into the information processing device, makes it impossible for the information processing device to access the legitimate ID and password to the information processing device, and thereby causing a danger of interference with business. Thus, the court below's determination on the premise that the (name omitted) university's order of transfer from the information support center to school cannot be deemed as invalid as an unfair labor act, and it cannot be viewed as an act of changing the password to the web server without permission due to a mistake of facts or interference with the information processing device, which constitutes a violation of the evidence or interference with business.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to apply to this case due to different cases.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 482(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that where a defendant files an appeal and the judgment of the court below is reversed, the whole number of detention days before the judgment of the court below shall be included in the original sentence after filing an appeal. Thus, in this case where the court below accepted defendant's appeal and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below can only determine the inclusion of detention days before the judgment of the court of first instance in the original sentence, and the whole number of detention days after filing an appeal shall be included in the original sentence in accordance with the above legal provisions, and it is not a nature that the judgment of the court below may determine whether to include the detention days after filing an appeal. This legal principle does not change because the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance before remand and remanded the judgment of the court of first instance before remand and remanded the judgment of the court of first instance after the prosecutor appealed the judgment of the court of first instance and remanded the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment on the inclusion in the original sentence of detention days before the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)