Automation and Crime – Legal Issues of Automation Applications: Requirements for Establishing Obstruction of Business

1. Overview of Automation Applications and Legal Issues

In the digital environment, automation applications have become essential tools for enhancing user convenience. However, when these automation programs affect the operational methods or policies of existing platforms, legal disputes can arise. Particularly in South Korea’s legal system, whether the development and use of automation programs constitute obstruction of business under criminal law is an important legal issue.

The violation of an existing service’s terms of service by an automation program does not necessarily make it subject to criminal punishment. This represents an important legal perspective that clearly delineates the boundary between civil disputes and criminal penalties. This article analyzes the legal status of automation applications and the requirements for establishing obstruction of business, focusing on the recent high-profile case of the ‘Magic’ delivery app assistant program in South Korea.

2. The ‘Magic’ Delivery App Assistant Program Case

Characteristics of the Original ‘Saengdaero’ Application

‘Saengdaero’ is a delivery agency application that mediates orders between restaurants and delivery drivers (riders) in South Korea. The app operated on a structure where it paid riders the delivery fee paid by restaurants minus a commission. Riders had different preferred delivery requests depending on various conditions such as delivery distance and restaurant-specific fees, and the ‘Saengdaero’ app distributed delivery requests according to its own business rules.

While ‘Saengdaero’ prohibited the unauthorized use of programs that could adversely affect the system through its terms of service, riders were looking for means to select delivery orders more efficiently.

Functions of the ‘Magic’ Assistant Application

The ‘Magic’ program developed by the defendants was an automation program that assisted the ‘Saengdaero’ app, providing the following main functions:

• Amount Setting Function: Automatically selects only orders above the minimum amount set by the rider
• Distance Setting Function: Selects only orders within the specified delivery distance range
• Priority Dispatch Setting Function: Prioritizes orders from specific businesses or conditions

This program was installed on the rider’s smartphone and operated by automatically clicking on orders that matched the conditions preset by the user among the order information displayed by the ‘Saengdaero’ app.

Prosecution’s Allegations

The prosecution determined that by developing and distributing the ‘Magic’ program, the defendants nullified the condition setting restrictions established by the ‘Saengdaero’ app for fair distribution. According to the prosecution’s argument, the filter function and automatic click function of ‘Magic’ interfered with the normal operation of the ‘Saengdaero’ information processing device, thereby obstructing the victim company’s business of distributing delivery requests fairly.

Consequently, the prosecution indicted the defendants for obstruction of business by computer interference as stipulated in Article 314, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act of South Korea.

3. Legal Requirements for Computer Interference Obstruction of Business

Elements of Article 314, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act

Article 314, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act of South Korea stipulates that “a person who damages a computer or special media records, such as electromagnetic records, inputting false information or illegal commands into the data processor, or interfering with the processing of the data processor by other means, thereby obstructing another person’s business, shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million won.”

The core elements required for this provision to apply are as follows:

1. Damaging an information processing device or inputting false information/illegal commands or causing interference in information processing by other means
2. Resulting in the occurrence of information processing interference
3. Consequently, obstructing a person’s business

Interpretation of the ‘Interference’ Requirement Through Precedents

The Supreme Court of South Korea has interpreted the meaning of ‘interference’ in computer obstruction of business through various precedents. Particularly in the Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11978 delivered on April 9, 2009, it was specified that for ‘interference’ in an information processing device to be recognized, as a result of the harmful act, the information processing device must actually be unable to perform functions that conform to its intended use or perform functions different from its intended use, resulting in actual interference with information processing.

In other words, the mere fact that a program is used in a manner contrary to the operator’s intentions or policies cannot be considered ‘interference’ subject to criminal punishment, and there must be substantial hindrance to the essential function performance of the information processing device.

4. Court’s Reasoning and Interpretation

The court rendered a not guilty verdict for the developers of the ‘Magic’ program in both the first and second instance trials. The main grounds for this decision are as follows:

1. Absence of Information Processing Interference

The court found that the ‘Magic’ program did not operate by causing overload on the server of the ‘Saengdaero’ app, modifying the source code of the app itself, or falsifying data in memory. ‘Magic’ merely automated the ‘click’ action according to conditions set by the user, reading order information already transmitted to the user’s smartphone.

Therefore, the court determined that it was difficult to recognize that physical or functional interference that actually prevented the ‘Saengdaero’ app or its server from performing its core delivery mediation function occurred due to the use of the ‘Magic’ program. The ‘Saengdaero’ app still maintained its core functions of receiving orders and providing lists to riders.

2. Unclear ‘Fair Distribution’ Purpose and Non-Recognition of Infringement

The court found it difficult to definitively state that the ‘Saengdaero’ app was set up and operated with the primary purpose of only exposing ‘random order lists’ or distributing requests ‘fairly’ regardless of riders’ preferred conditions. The victim failed to prove through specific data how this ‘fair distribution’ function was actually implemented and operated, and how the ‘Magic’ program essentially infringed upon it.

Rather, the ‘Saengdaero’ app itself had functions such as ‘dispatch distance setting’ and ‘area setting’, allowing riders to select orders that matched their conditions to some extent. Therefore, the court determined that it was difficult to view the ‘Magic’ program’s provision of condition setting convenience to riders as hindering functions conforming to the intended use of the ‘Saengdaero’ app or causing it to perform functions different from its intended use.

3. Nature of Accessibility Service-Based Automation

The court considered ‘Magic’ to be based on ‘accessibility services’ provided by Google and others. These accessibility services are legitimate tools provided to help users interact more easily with their devices.

‘Magic’ was deemed closer to automating the process where a user visually sees and manually clicks on information displayed by the ‘Saengdaero’ app. That is, it did not create new information not provided by the ‘Saengdaero’ app or perform actions beyond access rights.

The court held that recognizing ‘interference’ subject to criminal punishment in an existing app’s information processing merely because it provides additional user convenience functions not present in the existing app, and the possibility that it might somewhat contradict the existing app operator’s intentions, risks excessively expanding the scope of punishability.

4. Difficulty in Viewing as Input of False Information or Illegal Commands

The court determined that it was difficult to consider the ‘Magic’ program as inputting ‘false information’ contrary to objective truth into the ‘Saengdaero’ app, or inputting ‘illegal commands’ different from the original purpose of operating the information processing device. The program merely performed the input of ‘selection (click)’ according to criteria set by the user based on information displayed on the screen, rather than injecting information that would deceive the system or induce malfunction.

5. Similar Cases and Legal Precedents

Legal precedents similar to the ‘Magic’ case include various cases related to internet macro programs or automation tools. In these cases, the courts have consistently determined the establishment of obstruction of business centered on whether information processing interference actually occurred.

In particular, the Supreme Court of South Korea has maintained the position that while acts such as DDoS attacks that cause overload on a website’s server or interfere with normal operation can constitute obstruction of business, simply collecting information or performing tasks in an automated manner through a website’s UI is difficult to be subject to criminal punishment.

6. Legal Liability Range of Automation Program Developers

The ‘Magic’ case provides important implications regarding the scope of legal liability for automation program developers. The cases where developers bear criminal responsibility can be considered limited to the following situations:

1. When the developed program bypasses or neutralizes the security of the target system
2. When it directly causes physical damage or functional interference to the target system
3. When it operates by inputting false information or deceiving the system
4. When it is designed for illegal purposes (such as personal information theft, copyright infringement, etc.)

Conversely, programs that simply perform automated tasks through the UI of an existing service for user convenience, even if they contradict the service provider’s business model or policy, are difficult to be subject to criminal punishment. This is an important legal principle that clearly delineates the boundary between civil disputes (contract violations, torts, etc.) and criminal penalties.

7. Limitations of Terms of Service Enforcement

The ‘Magic’ case also sparks discussion about how far restrictions set by companies through terms of service can be legally enforced. The fact that a service provider prohibits the use of automation programs through its terms of service does not automatically make the development and use of such programs subject to criminal punishment.

Violations of terms of service are fundamentally a matter of contractual relationships and should be resolved through civil remedies such as service use restrictions or claims for damages. Criminal punishment should only be applied when the punishability of an act is clearly stipulated in law and the act infringes upon socially significant legal interests.

8. Implications and Conclusion

The not guilty verdict in the ‘Magic’ program case provides the following important implications regarding the legal status of automation applications:

1. Distinction Between Criminal Punishment and Civil Liability: The development and use of automation programs that violate terms of service or contradict service policies fall within the realm of civil disputes, and clear infringement of legal interests is necessary for criminal punishment.
2. Strict Interpretation of ‘Interference’: ‘Interference’ in computer obstruction of business refers to a state where the information processing device cannot perform its original function, and it cannot be considered ‘interference’ merely because it is used in a manner different from the operator’s intentions.
3. Balance Between Automation and Innovation: In the digital environment, automation is a key element for innovation and efficiency enhancement, and excessive intervention by criminal law can hinder such innovation. The court’s decision in this case can be evaluated as seeking a balance between digital innovation and legal regulation.
4. Importance of Burden of Proof: Those claiming obstruction of business need to specifically prove how their system operates for what purpose, and how the problematic act interfered with the normal operation of such a system.

Kim & Park Law Firm LLC has successfully defended defendants in similar legal disputes related to automation applications in South Korea. Particularly, by comprehensively considering both technical and legal aspects, the firm has led courts to deliver not guilty verdicts through clear legal arguments regarding how automation programs operate and whether information processing interference occurs.

This verdict serves as an important precedent for new types of legal disputes occurring in the digital environment and is expected to be a standard for judging similar cases in the future. Both automation program developers and service providers need to understand these legal standards and make efforts to find mutual respect and reasonable balance points.