The awaited leeching debacle!

Accidentally stealing and stealing are the same. Except that when you accidentally steal and find out, the chances of you realising what you did was wrong and going back are much greater. Neither leechers or hackers have that much of a conscience though.

Let's see, how are leeching and hacking the same...
Power leveling without needing to be at the computer? Check.
Making maps unusable for other people? Check.
Making Nexon money? Leechers: check. Hackers: Nope.

I dunno, I can't think of any other examples, but that pretty much sums it up.

By that argument, stealing and buying are also more or less the same:
You gain the item you want to? Check
Making the store money? Buyers: Check, Thieves: Nope.

And thus, people that steal an item are the same, apart from the money-earning-thing.

But as a very extreme argument, do you think that paying someone to kill your lover makes you less guilty than if you killed them yourself? Same result, different means. Still bad.

Both are, by law, not allowed. Therefore, both are guilty. "Who's the most guilty" is a philosophic interesting question, but that does not matter when we just want to find out if someone's guilty of doing something.

You're stating that killing your lover is against the law (at least, you seem to imply so), and because of that, you're stating that paying someone to kill your lover is against the law. That would, in this case, mean that if killing your mobs is against the law, then paying someone to kill your mob for you is against the law. But none of these are true.

By that logic paying someone else to kill your mobs for you makes you just as law abiding as doing it yourself.

How? You can't substitute wrong for right like that. By that standard, nothing is ever wrong. And maybe you believe that, but sorry, that doesn't fly for the rest of the world.

There's no substitution of wrong or right. If you ask person B to do action C for a sum of money, then you and person B are responsible for action C, if person B was not going to do action C without your money. Therefore, the punishment or reward of doing action C should be shared between person B and you. Which is exactly what is happening here. The reward (exp) is being shared (tadaa) for a sum of money. The sum of money could always be substituted with "something else", assuming "something else" is legal.

Edit: Seems like I'm slow, and that my points have been stated already.