First of all, theres a part missing in your sentence. I assume you wanted to express or ask If I still wouldnt consider your described scenario cheating. Answer: I wouldnt. Take a look at the definitions I brought up. I am a fan of the “code is law” perspective and in your scenario, there was no active modifying of the games code. It surely wouldnt be fun and it would be better if nobody would exploit such a bug but in the end, everybody would have access to it and could use it. It would destroy the game but its not a single person or a group of people gaining an advantage because they hack or cheat. They would still simply exploit a bug.
2.) There once was the case of the player Necrom who won a UC (Autumn 2016) and beat the unbeatable Hidan. He was accused of hacking and cheating but it turned out there was a bug which made it possible for him to face the same team over and over again. Devs released the following statement:
As you can see: Making use of a bug is not considered to be hacking or cheating. At least in Neo Monsters up to this day.
3.) Making an extreme example as you did isnt always the best way to bring across your point. For example when you study law you will sooner or later encounter the trolley problem. Its bascially the question if it is okay to kill one person if you can save the live of five other people by doing so (You can also approach this question in an ethical way but thats not the point here. To make it short: If you prefer deontoligical ethics like Kant then the answer is NO, if you prefer Utilitarianism like Bentham for John Stuart Mill then the answer is YES).
But the juridical point here is -as the german constitutional court confirmed- : According to the UN Charta all human beings are born free and equal so it is impossible to value one life more than another life. Therefore you cant reduce humans to objects and simply say: “Well, save one or save five, I will definitely save one” because in that very moment you reduce human lifes to objects and act like you could weigh the pros and cons for one decission or another like you would do with a car or whatever. So the juristic answer is: One life is never worth more than another and since you cant reduce them to objects its never legal for the government to kill an innocent person in order to save five or whatever number of lifes.
Then there are people who make an extrem example like: What if you could save 1 Million lifes by killing one person.
But this extreme example changes absolutely NOTHING!!! about the core argument that was brought up and that is still valid even if its 1 against 1 Million.
Same situation here: You could describe the worst possible bug, it wouldnt change any of the points I brought up because making use of a bug isnt cheating if youre definition of cheating is that somebody has to actively modify or hack the gamecode to gain a significant advantage over the rest of the playerbase.