It's a lowest level court, they're known to have wildly absurd legal opinions at times. Having stupid laws on the book (like the one in question) doesn't help.

The curious bit is that this law is from 2007, so apparently this is an angle that escaped all attorney and courts who applied this law in 16.5 years, or the defense could have shot down this line of reasoning by pointing out that this isn't what the law intended. (we don't have case law, but there are means of harmonizing outcomes once stuff ended up at higher level courts)

My guess is that this won't hold up for long given the circumstances (trivially got the password, accidentally gained more access than expected, immediately disconnected upon notice)