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

While the Defendant was working in the Mental Care Center related work, on March 2015, the Defendant used that he was working in the community service center as a social work personnel with knowledge of middle school from middle school to middle school, and provided personal information that was discovered through unauthorized inquiry of the family relation registration information of the person who requested the work to the “master of the Mental Care Center”, such as the president of the Mental Care Center and received the price.

On March 8, 2016, the Defendant requested C to inquire about D’s family relation registration information using a smartphone-type text message, and C received a family relation registration information from a person who was discovered through E working as a social work personnel at the above community service center and notified the personal information to a person who was not registered in his/her name and received a price of KRW 1.50,000 from that time until September 5, 2016, the Defendant received approximately KRW 1.2 million in total as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and obtained such information for profit, which is personal information processed by the Supreme Court by illegal means or methods, and provided it to a third party for profit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the C substitute part of the examination);

1. A copy of the police investigation protocol concerning F; and

1. Seizure records;

1. To apply text of extracting details of account transactions, specifications by account, and Acts and subordinate statutes of transactions;

1. Article 70 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 70 of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing in Article 74-2 of the Personal Information Protection Act (the defendant, a total of eight personal information per case, led to the confession that he/she sold the personal information, and this is also recognized by evidence. Thus, it is also recognized that 1.2 million won per case), while the defendant did not seek an occupation that he/she would have left as a North Korean defectors, he/she was engaged in any work related to the Oil Center while he/she was she was