The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

When considering the circumstances under the misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the sentencing), the Defendant’s withdrawal from NAD and removal of NAD does not constitute the elements of Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act.

As a result, the Defendant requested the withdrawal of NAD from the account opened in its name upon the request of I, a member who is a member with rights and responsibility for management of NAD, and as a result, deleted the NAD account, the Defendant does not constitute “damage to the information processing unit, such as computer, or special media records, such as electronic records, or entered false information or unjust orders into the information processing unit” or “in the information processing unit” under Article 314(2) of the Criminal Act.

The termination of the License Agreement is done in relation with the members and the KVBA, and it does not affect any information processing device, such as the computer of the members, because it is merely impossible for the members to use the services and delete notices on the services, and it does not affect any information processing device, such as the computer of the members. Therefore, the defendant's act was affected by the computer operation owned by

subsection (b) of this section.

In consideration of the following circumstances, the Defendant conspiredd to interfere with the business.

subsection (b) of this section.

A victim company has employed employees for marketing activities and paid monthly wages to such employees, and it does not separately pay the cost of opening and using the tables. Thus, the victim company in the original instance did not pay the monthly wages of the employees. Thus, in the lower court, the victim company managed the tables with the fact that the victim company paid the monthly wages of the employees.

The appointment of the person is not proper.

The victim company opened a large number of tables, including the tables opened by I to the extent that it could not specify the number, and used them for marketing promotion, and limited to part of I, and the Defendant’s deletion is the only means of public relations for the victim company.