A. The claims collector who intruded on an information and communications network without access authority may not be deemed to have been subject to specific and individual instructions and supervision by the Defendant, and thus, it does not constitute a “representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation, or of an individual,” as prescribed in Article 75 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”), and ② the prosecutor’s duty of due care and supervision as prescribed in the proviso of Article 75 of the Information and Communications Network Act. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and supervision. Rather, according to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the lower court did not neglect due care and supervision as to the pertinent business in order to prevent the violation, such as faithfully complying with the Financial Supervisory Service’s regulations enacted and announced by the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information and Communications Network Business established and announced by the Financial Supervisory Commission. (3) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s act prior to this case.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 15 million imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The court below duly adopted and examined the first argument.