In this paper, I undertake the study of click fraud by Cases Analysis and Law Analysis. Click fraud is a type of fraud that occurs on the Internet search advertising in pay-per-click (PPC) when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad. PPC advertising is an arrangement in which operators of websites display links from advertisers in exchange for a charge per click. Competitors of advertisers may wish to harm a competitor who advertises in the same market by clicking on their ads. Click-fraud perpetrators essentially pile up and burn their competitors’ marketing budgets in the one place they can attack them. The perpetrators do not profit directly but force the advertiser to pay for irrelevant clicks, thus weakening or eliminating a source of competition. Using a computer to commit click fraud is a felony. According to the Act on promotion of information and communications network utilization and information protection, etc in Korea, No one shall cause a trouble to an information and communications network purposely to interfere with stable operation of the information and communications network by sending a large amount of signals or data, letting the network process an illegitimate order, etc. Also according to the criminal act, Any person who interferes with another person’s business by damaging or destroying any data processor, such as computer, or special media records, such as electromagnetic records, or inputting false information or improper order into the data processor, or making any impediment in processing any data by other way, shall also be subject to the same punishment as referred to in paragraph. In this paper, I have described the concept; ‘letting the network process an illegitimate order’ and inputting false information or improper order.

In recent years, many potholes in asphalt pavement occurred. In order to facilitate the repair, in this study, repair materials with high durability and excellent productivity appropriate for asphalt pre-cast materials was developed. Physical properties test and durability test of various repair materials(SMA, PMA, guss mixtures, water-reactive mixtures) were performed. In order to evaluate the workability at pre-production time of samples using repair materials were made in different shapes and sizes. Finally, after comparing mixtures, water-reactive mixture was selected as repair material. This was verified through several testing.

Online game industry in Korea is growing up. The growth of game industry brings new problem of Item fraud, stealing by hacking other’s game account, trade of online game accounts etc. Korea Supreme Court decided that a person who had sold his account of online game to others is not guilty when he changed the password of that account after trading game account.The buyer has illegal rights to access to a game accounts, even though he purchased a game accounts. On the contrary the seller has a rightful to access that account. Game service providers prohibit the account trade at their adhesion contracts. Though accounts trading is prohibited from adhesion contracts of online game, the effect of contract is valid to game user and service provider. The trading is a valid contract to the party concerned and the right to access is moved to the buyer entirely.The ‘information of others’ in the article 49 in Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection, etc. is to be interpreted from the legality to access to the information not to the network of information service. That is not correct that the Seller who made account first in online game changed this password after trading game account, he is not guilty. Rather this is correct that he violates his contract because he blocked the buyer’s use of account including change of password, playing games, etc. Buyer has an information proprietary rights about games because he buys game account.

The Supreme Court precedent is related to this litigation regarding several important issues. The first issue is on the exact definition of trade secrets acquisition and their use under the Article 18 of the Prevention of Unfair Competition Act. Other pertinent issues are, once an employee appropriates trade secrets or main assets for a rival company, in what case it would be considered as committing occupational breach of trust and what would constitute as onset of the crime.The Supreme Court held that accessing trade secrets within close time frame of the pertaining business activity with intentions to use the confidential business information regarding that activity would be sufficiently deemed as start of the crime. Additionally, in the case of electronic files such as a tub cards holder, the Supreme Court decided that running of the electronic files would be recognized as onset of the crime. These decisions by the Supreme Court are not particularly problematic. On the other hand, since it is more difficult to determine whether a retired or former employee has committed such occupational breach of trust, the issue calls for further discussion. In order to charge a former employee with professional misappropriation, the employee must be “a person who deals with affairs of others.” In such case, if the former employee has signed a contract with the employer to keep trade secret for reasonable time, there are discernable grounds for putting burden on the employee to maintain confidentiality. However, any confidentiality agreement that is either permanent or lacking specific term for time limit can be excessively infringing on the freedom of former employees to choose their occupation. As a result, provided that the former employee does not have a confidentiality agreement, he should not be punished for occupational misappropriation in order to respect constitutional freedom of career choice and to maintain a balanced interpretation. Furthermore, it is likely that the court will interpret an action requiring an employee to keep business information confidential for unreasonably long time many years after expiration of his employment contract as excessively infringing upon fundamental rights of the employee, such as the freedom of career choice. In addition, other related precedents show similar attitudes even when the employee acquires trade secrets by means of his memories. Thus, I strongly believe that the court should be more cautious in this matter in order to guard basic human rights from ambiguous interpretations.