Crime of Interference With Business Assistance Case | A Client Against Whom a Complaint for Interference With Business Was Filed Over a Handover Matter After Leaving the Company

The complainant claimed that the client had interfered with the company's work by not disclosing to the successor the passwords for the accounts needed for company work.

However, the victim company had a system in which the accounts and passwords needed for work were managed in an Excel file and shared with employees.

In fact, the firm's Digital Forensics Center secured the content of the in-house messenger through which the company's employees had communicated by exchanging the Excel file.

In addition, the lawyer argued that because the accounts used at the company used an email address owned by the company, access and use were possible through an authentication procedure even without knowing the password.

In this regard, the Supreme Court held that, because the password of the main computer is no more than a security means for accessing the system, it cannot be found that a disturbance to the function of an information processing device was caused solely on the circumstance that a password was not disclosed, and thus the crime of interference with business by disturbance to a computer or the like is not established (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do631, July 9, 2004).

In addition, the Supreme Court held that the deceit referred to in the crime of interference with business by deceit means causing a misperception or mistake in the other party and making use of it, and that the crime of interference with business is established only when the other party performs a mistaken act or disposition accordingly (Supreme Court Decision 91Do2221, June 9, 1992).

Even after leaving the company, the client received a request from the complainant and the overall manager to help a little more with the work the client had originally been in charge of, and supported the work in the form of remote work about once a week.

At the time, the complainant made a proposal, stating that the daily wage for helping with the work would be paid together with the severance pay, and asking the client to express an intention not to seek punishment regarding the complaint for unpaid wages.

Accordingly, the criminal defense lawyer, in collaboration with an evidence investigation specialist, secured and submitted the work emails and messenger conversation content from that time.

The lawyer emphasized that, if it had been clear that the company had suffered harm because the handover was not performed, the company would not have requested work support from the client who had left, and, along with this, emphasized that there had been no intention to interfere with business.

The complainant claimed that the client's act of saving to a personal laptop and taking out the work files and materials that the client had used while employed constituted theft.

However, because the client's departure was scheduled, the client, at the manager's request, carried out the task of moving the materials on the computer the client had been using to a computer within the team, and employees in the same department also helped with this task together.

The criminal defense lawyer secured the statements of the employees who had worked together at the time and established that the client had left the company while leaving behind the materials the company would use.

In this regard, the Supreme Court in fact held that information stored on a computer does not itself constitute property, and even if it is copied or printed out, the victim's possession or possibility of use is not reduced, so the crime of larceny cannot be found to be established (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do745, July 12, 2002).

Accordingly, the criminal defense lawyer, along with the above holding, actively argued that the client's act was a duplication of materials generated in the course of work and did not infringe the company's possession, so the theft suspicion could not be found.

The crime of interference with business is not established merely on the ground that discomfort was caused to the other party.

The Criminal Act provides for the crime of interference with business as follows.

For the crime of interference with business to be established, another's business must be interfered with by deceit or force.

Here, 'deceit' means causing a misperception, mistake, or ignorance in the other party and making use of it, and 'force' means any and all power that can suppress or confuse a person's free will.

In addition, the crime of interference with business is difficult to find on the basis of an ordinary conflict or discomfort alone. (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004, March 25, 2005)

Furthermore, the crime of interference with business may also be established where a person interferes with business by causing a disturbance to an information processing device.

Ultimately, the crime of interference with business is judged by comprehensively reviewing what actual effect there was on the other party's normal performance of business and whether deceit or force existed.