17th of February this year saw the ruling of the Seoul Central District Court that Viber Media, Inc.(hereinafter called “Viber”) of Israel should not distribute its Viber application(hereinafter called “Viber App”) in Korea on account of infringing a patent relating to computer program. This case, involving SK Telecom’s patented invention “Mobile Communication Terminal Having Address Book Reorganizing Function for Instant Messenger Service, and Method for Reorganizing Address Book Using the Same”, deals with the claim of indirect infringement against the mobile communication terminal as well as the claim of indirect or direct infringement against the Method for Reorganizing Address Book of the said patented invention by Viber distributing Viber App in Korea. In response, the Court, on the assumption that Viber App is considered a product in that it is sotored on the apparatus or media, judged whether the distribution on internet of Viber App by Viber corresponded to indirect infringement under the law 127-1 with regard to mobile communication terminal. In this respect, there has been a considerable controversy about the Patentability of Computer Programs as the Product under the Patent Law In particular, on the motion of a National Assembly member Dong-Wan Kim on October 1, 2014 about a partial amendment proposal(Bill No. 11949) of patent law, the dispute about the Patentability of Computer Programs as the Product widened considerably. Therefore, this study delves into Examination Guidelines on computer software related inventions as well as legislation talks pertaining to computer software, and further into the Court’s ruling about the Patentability of Computer Programs as the Product to discuss whether Viber App is viewed as a product at this judgement, namely whether the computer program intended to be stored on media is to be appreciated as a product.