However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On July 6, 2020, the Defendant attempted to intrude upon the victim’s residence by opening the entrance door, which was not corrected in the victim D’s residence in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Officetel Btel C around July 6, 2020, and attempted to intrude upon the victim’s residence by examining the victim’s residence plan.

2. Around July 6, 2020, the Defendant opened a letter of opening, in order to verify the personal information of the persons residing in the subparagraphs C, by posting the first floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office 2 Officetel 1, and opened the victim’s letter by removing the mail owned by the victim D, and inspecting the contents thereof.

3. The Defendant stolen a thief’s mail opened at the same time and at the same place as above, which was stolen.

4. The Defendant violated the Personal Information Protection Act: (a) around July 6, 2020, in order to find out the contact information of the victim D at the guard room of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Btel 1, the Defendant requested the security guards in charge of security services to notify the victim D’s personal information, which is a resident of the victim C, and received personal information from the said E by receiving the victim’s Handphone number.

As a result, the Defendant received personal information while knowing that the personal information manager did not obtain consent from the subject of information.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Each photograph (in full view of the circumstances of each of the instant crimes, the situation at the time of the commission of the crime, the contents of the crime, etc., the intent of each of the instant crimes is sufficiently recognized.

In addition, even if considering the motive and circumstances of the instant crime alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to see that the reasonableness is recognized in the means and method, and it cannot be viewed as an urgent and inevitable means, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 322 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Articles 322 and 319 of the Criminal Act.