Legal Liability of Automation Programs and Obstruction of Business – Analysis of Acquittal in Delivery App Auto-Order Program

1. Current Status of Automation Technology and Legal Disputes

In the digital age, automation technology has become a key driver for enhancing user experience. However, when such automation solutions impact the operational policies or business models of existing platforms, unexpected legal conflicts can arise. Particularly in Korea’s criminal law system, whether the development and operation of automation programs constitute obstruction of business is emerging as a very important legal issue.

The fact that automation technology violates the terms of service of existing services does not immediately make it subject to criminal punishment. This is an important legal perspective that clearly distinguishes between civil contract violations and criminal culpability. This case was defended by K&P Law Firm and resulted in an acquittal. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the legal status of automation technology and the elements for establishing obstruction of business, focusing on the recently notable delivery app auto-order program ‘Magic’ case.

2. Detailed Analysis of Delivery App Auto-Order Program ‘Magic’ Case

Operating Structure of Original Platform ‘Saengdaero’

‘Saengdaero’ is a delivery agency platform that mediates orders between restaurants and delivery drivers (riders). This service operated on a structure where it paid riders the amount after deducting commissions from delivery fees paid by restaurants. Riders had different preferences for delivery requests based on various conditions such as delivery distance and restaurant-specific fees, and the ‘Saengdaero’ platform distributed delivery requests according to its own business regulations.

While ‘Saengdaero’ prohibited the unauthorized use of programs that could adversely affect the system through its terms of service, riders wanted more efficient means for selecting delivery orders.

Core Functions of Automation Solution ‘Magic’

The ‘Magic’ program developed by the defendants was an automation solution 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 automation program was installed on riders’ smartphones and operated by automatically clicking on orders that met user-preset conditions when they appeared among the order information displayed by the ‘Saengdaero’ app.

Prosecution’s Charges

The prosecution determined that the defendants developed and distributed the ‘Magic’ program, thereby neutralizing the condition setting limitations that the ‘Saengdaero’ app had established 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, obstructing the victim company’s business of fairly distributing delivery requests.

Accordingly, the prosecution indicted the defendants for computer obstruction of business under Article 314, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act.

3. Interpretation of Computer Obstruction of Business Elements

Elements of Article 314, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act

Article 314, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act stipulates that “a person who destroys a computer or other information processing device or electronic records or other special media records, or inputs false information or improper commands into an information processing device, or causes an obstacle to information processing by other methods, thereby obstructing a person’s business, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won.”

The key elements for applying this provision are as follows:

1. Destructive acts against information processing devices or input of false information/improper commands or causing information processing obstacles by other methods
2. Resulting actual occurrence of information processing obstacles
3. Consequently obstructing a person’s business

Interpretation of ‘Obstacle’ Requirements Through Precedents

The Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of ‘obstacle’ in computer obstruction of business through various precedents. Particularly in the Supreme Court decision of April 9, 2009 (2008Do11978), it specified that for an ‘obstacle’ to be recognized in an information processing device, as a result of harmful acts, the information processing device must fail to function according to its intended purpose or function differently from its intended purpose, and obstacles to information processing must actually occur.

In other words, simply because a program is used in a manner contrary to the operator’s intentions or policies does not constitute an ‘obstacle’ subject to criminal punishment under criminal law, and there must be substantial interference with the essential function performance of the information processing device.

4. Court Decision’s Core Logic and Acquittal Grounds

Both the first instance and appellate courts rendered not guilty verdicts for the developers of the ‘Magic’ program. The main grounds for this judgment, as argued by K&P Law Firm, are as follows:

1. Absence of Information Processing Obstacles

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

Therefore, the court determined it was difficult to recognize that physical or functional obstacles actually occurred that would prevent the ‘Saengdaero’ app or its server from performing its original delivery mediation function 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 conclude that the ‘Saengdaero’ app was set up and operated with the primary purpose of exposing only ‘random order lists’ or ‘fairly distributing requests’ regardless of riders’ preference conditions. The victim side failed to prove through specific data how such ‘fair distribution’ function was actually implemented and operated, and how the ‘Magic’ program essentially infringed upon it.

Rather, the ‘Saengdaero’ app itself had ‘dispatch distance setting function’ and ‘area setting function,’ allowing riders some room to select orders that met their conditions to some extent. Therefore, the court judged that it was difficult to see that the ‘Magic’ program’s provision of condition-setting convenience to riders impaired functions consistent with the ‘Saengdaero’ app’s intended purpose or made it perform functions different from its intended purpose.

3. Nature of Accessibility Service-Based Automation

The court viewed the ‘Magic’ program as being created based on ‘accessibility services’ provided by Google and others. Such accessibility services are legitimate tools provided to help users interact more easily with their devices.

The court determined that ‘Magic’ was closer to automating the process of users visually seeing and manually clicking information displayed on screen by the ‘Saengdaero’ app. In other words, it did not newly generate information that the ‘Saengdaero’ app did not provide or act beyond access permissions.

The court saw that recognizing criminal law-punishable ‘obstacles’ in existing app information processing solely because additional user convenience functions not available in existing apps were provided, and solely based on the possibility that this might somewhat conflict with existing app operators’ intentions, would risk excessively expanding the scope of punishability.

4. Difficult to View as False Information Input or Improper Commands

The court judged that it was difficult to see the ‘Magic’ program as inputting ‘false information’ contrary to objective truth or ‘improper commands’ different from the original purpose of information processing device operation into the ‘Saengdaero’ app. The program merely performed the input of ‘selection (click)’ based on information displayed on screen according to user-set criteria, without injecting information that would deceive the system or induce malfunction.

5. Review of Related Precedents and Legal Cases

Legal precedents similar to the ‘Magic’ case include various rulings related to internet macro programs and automation tools. Courts have consistently judged the establishment of obstruction of business based on whether information processing obstacles actually occurred in such cases.

Particularly, the Supreme Court has maintained the position that while acts like DDoS attacks that cause server overload or interfere with normal website operation can constitute obstruction of business, simply collecting information or performing tasks in an automated manner through website UI is unlikely to be subject to criminal punishment.

6. Legal Risk Assessment for Automation Software Developers

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

1. When developed programs bypass or neutralize target system security
2. When they directly cause physical damage or functional obstacles to target systems
3. When they operate by inputting false information or deceiving systems
4. When designed for illegal purposes (personal information theft, copyright infringement, etc.)

Conversely, programs that simply perform automated tasks through existing service UIs for user convenience are unlikely to be subject to criminal punishment, even if they go against service providers’ business models or policies. This is an important legal principle that clarifies the boundary between civil disputes (contract violations, torts, etc.) and criminal punishment.

7. Limitations of Service Terms and Criminal Law Punishment

The ‘Magic’ case also triggers discussion about how far restrictions set by companies through terms of service can have legal enforceability. Just because service providers prohibit the use of automation programs through terms of service does not automatically make the development and use of such programs subject to criminal punishment.

Terms violations are fundamentally contractual matters that should be resolved through civil remedies such as service use restrictions or damage compensation claims. Criminal punishment should only apply when the punishability of acts is clearly stipulated in law and when such acts infringe upon socially significant legal interests.

8. Conclusion and Future Prospects

The acquittal in the ‘Magic’ program case provides the following important implications regarding the legal status of automation technology:

1. Distinction between Criminal Punishment and Civil Liability: The development and use of automation programs that violate terms or service policies fall under civil disputes, and clear legal interest infringement is required for criminal punishment.
2. Strict Interpretation of ‘Obstacles’: ‘Obstacles’ in computer obstruction of business mean situations where information processing devices cannot perform their original functions, and simply being used in ways different from operators’ intentions cannot be seen as ‘obstacles’ occurring.
3. Balance between Automation and Innovation: Automation is a core element of innovation and efficiency improvement in digital environments, and excessive intervention by criminal law can hinder such innovation. This court decision can be evaluated as seeking balance between digital innovation and legal regulation.
4. Importance of Burden of Proof: Those claiming business obstruction need to specifically prove how their systems operate for what purposes and how the problematic acts interfered with normal system operation.

K&P Law Firm has recent experience successfully defending defendants in legal disputes related to automation programs. Particularly, by comprehensively considering technical and legal aspects, they have led the court to acquittal verdicts through clear legal arguments regarding automation program operation methods and whether information processing obstacles occurred.

This verdict is expected to serve as an important precedent for new types of legal disputes arising in digital environments and as judgment criteria for similar future cases. Both automation program developers and service providers need to understand these legal standards and make efforts to find mutual respect and reasonable balance points.

K&P Law Firm Case Study