The defendant was divorced between the victim B and the Seoul Family Court around April 7, 2020.

No one shall damage another person's information processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network, or infringe, misappropriate, or divulge another person's confidential information.

Defendant

On June 2020, after the victim's residence in Mapo-gu Seoul Police Officer C, the victim left his house after leaving the house and laid down a lock, carried phone, etc. on the kitchen which he left the house and left the kitchen, and the victim kept in custody of the victim's Kakao Stockholm Stockholm, which was installed in the victim's portable telephone phone, without permission, by submitting evidentiary materials in the property division lawsuit against the victim, thereby divulging the victim's secret that is not disclosed by means of photographing the victim's mother and Kaka Kaka Stockholm Stockholm Stockholm. The victim's secret was infringed on the victim's secret that is not disclosed by means of photographing the victim's cell with his own telephone camera.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to Kakao Stockholm evidence and investigation report (related to time in order related to external outflow of the Kakao Stockholm dialogue);

1. Article 71 (1) 11 and 49 of the Act on Promotion of the Optional Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 71 (1) 11 and 49 of the same Act;

1. A fine of 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment, the fact that there is no record of the victim's request that the victim maintain marital relations, while living together, and the victim did not take measures to make it difficult for him to access the mobile phone of this case, and the infringing confidential information is between husband and wife.