In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, only 100,000 won.

The Defendants operate a loan brokerage company under the name of “I”, and are subjected to urines employed by J, a personal information manager who manages personal information to operate personal information files for the purpose of loan brokerage business.

From August 27, 2013, the Defendants acquired approximately 1,166 personal information, such as M, by using a small call number to be changed to indicate “L” numbers from the 2nd floor office of the building in the Guri-si, from the date of its influence to August 27, 2013, and by falsely misrepresenting the counselor of the “on-site Savings Bank”, and by checking personal information, such as the name, age, occupation, amount of income, residential area, four major insurance coverage, tax return amount, telephone number, etc. of the other party who wants to obtain the loan, and making it arranged into an accelerator file.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with J and acquired personal information by fraud or other improper means or means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol against J;

1. Statement of the N in the police station;

1. Application of seizure records, seizure lists, on-site photographs statutes;

1. Article 72 Subparag. 2 and Article 59 Subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for negligence;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;