A. In the process of seeing Defendant A’s personal information, F, who filed a false complaint with the investigative agency, on the ground that Defendant A did not properly transfer the personal information, but was not subject to disposition of non-prosecution. Defendant A filed a complaint with six criminal offenders, only one of the instant charges was prosecuted, and the Defendants were required to demand KRW 50 million to the Defendants. Thus, F’s statement is not reliable.

Although the visibility of the photograph inside the hotel room submitted by F as evidence is 10:11:00 p.m., it is not consistent with F’s assertion.

Although F is seen to have taken the pictures of this woman at the same place, it is not possible to know the time of taking the pictures, and it was not confirmed whether F was taken directly by a third party. Since F, G visited 11 times or Vietnam after the opposite line, and G, an international marriage counterpart, visited 6 times or Vietnam after July 2017 when it was requested to file a complaint by another company, and there is no possibility that it could have taken the pictures of women in the waiting room.

Defendant

B did not enter the hotel, and thus did not participate in the double line.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s respective punishment (a fine of three million won) imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination is justifiable inasmuch as it was acknowledged that Defendant B introduced about five minutes to F on January 15, 2016, about two other parties, including G, at intervals of about five minutes, at the same time.