Note: The following content is for reference only and cannot replace professional legal advice. In actual cases, please be sure to consult a professional lawyer to ensure that the defense viewpoint meets the legal requirements and specific facts. When constructing the defense for the client that "he is helping to improve the security of the information system", you can consider the following ideas, but please note that even if the subjective starting point may be good, unauthorized intrusion still constitutes a legal violation, and the court may not exempt the illegal facts because of "good intentions". The following are possible defense arguments: 1. Intention issue Argue that the original intention of the client's behavior is to discover potential security risks in the system, thereby prompting the relevant parties to take improvement measures to improve overall security. This "white hat" action is a recognized behavior in many countries and regions (provided that there is clear authorization or security testing performed within a reasonable scope). In the defense, it can be claimed that the client has no malicious intent and the purpose of the behavior is in the public security interest, rather than seeking illegal benefits for individuals. 2. No harm principle Emphasize that during the hacker intrusion process, no substantial damage is caused to the target system, data or users. If it can be proved that although the behavior was unauthorized, important vulnerabilities were discovered as a result, providing a basis for system security reinforcement, it can be used as a reference for mitigating liability and sentencing. Proving no damage can include: no tampering, no deletion, no leakage or no sale of sensitive information, and timely notification after the intrusion or notification of relevant vulnerabilities through other secure channels. 3. Echoing industry practices In legal security testing and penetration testing, professional security researchers will take the initiative to find system vulnerabilities after being hired or authorized. The defense can introduce relevant industry standards and successful cases to show that in many cases, similar technical means can help companies discover and remedy security risks in advance after being legally authorized. If there is evidence that the customer has or tried to communicate with the system owner and report the vulnerability, it can also be used as one of the arguments. 4. Responsible Disclosure If it is proven that the customer took timely measures (such as reporting the vulnerability to the target company or relevant competent authorities) after discovering the system vulnerability instead of exploiting the vulnerability for profit, it can be argued that its behavior complies with the responsible disclosure process. Evidence to prove this may include email exchanges, report files, chat records, etc., indicating that the client tried to promote system improvements after discovering the problem, rather than continuing to exploit the vulnerability for profit or aggravating destructive behavior. 5. Public interest principle Emphasize that although the client took unauthorized means, his behavior played a "preventive" role in the information security of the country or unit, helping the system to discover and correct potential risks, thereby avoiding larger-scale information leaks or cyber attacks in the future. The key to this argument is to prove that if the vulnerability is not repaired in time, it may be exploited by malicious hackers and endanger public safety, thereby linking the client's behavior with the public interest. 6. Cooperation attitude and willingness to correct If the client in the case shows active cooperation, takes the initiative to repair the vulnerability and cooperates with the investigation afterwards, this attitude can be emphasized to strive for the court to deal leniently. Proving that the client has the willingness to repent and assume social responsibility can also reduce his legal liability to a certain extent. It should be noted that most of the above arguments focus on explaining the original intention of the client's behavior and the positive effects that ultimately occurred, but they cannot change the illegality of the unauthorized intrusion itself. When considering the defense, the court will weigh the legal relationship between the illegal behavior and the positive consequences. Therefore, when preparing the defense, the case and related background must be presented comprehensively and objectively, and supplemented with sufficient evidence to prove the client's goodwill and promotion of public safety during the behavior. Reminder again: There will be great differences in legal provisions and judicial practices in different countries or regions. The specific defense strategy must be tailored according to the facts of the case and the court's determination of illegal intrusion. Please ensure that you abide by the facts in all your statements, do not make false statements, and conduct relevant defense work under the guidance of professional lawyers.