2. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the records of this case’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant acquired the employment contract of this case as a 103 Dong Dong representative of the apartment of this case and became aware of personal information, such as the name, address, contact information, etc. of E in the course of performing his duties.

The prior prosecutor's assertion on a different premise is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Defendant asserted that “the instant employment contract was posted on a dry site with the name, address, contact number, etc. of E” and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant acquired the instant employment contract in the course of performing his duties as the same representative of the instant apartment as the 103 unit representative of the apartment complex.

② The articles of association for the representatives of occupants of the apartment in this case only stipulate that “the representative of the apartment in this case shall be an executive officer of the representative council of occupants, and shall have voting rights on the matters to be resolved by the board of directors (the matters concerning the execution of the business plan, partial revision of the business plan, the convocation of the representative council of occupants, the matters delegated by the representative council of occupants, and other matters concerning the management and operation

3. Preliminary facts charged and the judgment on them

A. A. A prosecutor’s preliminary application of Article 71 Subparag. 6 and Article 59 Subparag. 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act to the first instance trial, and “The Defendant” in the facts charged, “101, 102, 103 entrance doors and 103, 103, 103, 103, 103, 103, 103, 103, 103.