Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this judgment.

A. Defendant A misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A, as a sales agent, performed the sale of personal information by using the list of the staff of the staff of the Busan Metropolitan City in April 3, 2015, which was already leaked by Defendant B at the fifth floor of the building of the 5th floor of the Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, which was already leaked by Defendant B, and continued the sale of personal information by using the list of the staff at the above sales office, and at the office located in Seoul, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant posted the list of the staff at the above sales office constituted the “Leakage of personal information” under Article 59 subparag. 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (two years of suspended execution in August, community service order, eight hours of community service order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A and the sentence sentenced to Defendant B (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment), which the lower court committed against Defendant A, is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 3, 2015, Defendant A, the summary of Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, was provided to the Plaintiff for the purpose of publicity for the sale of officetels through H in 2014, which included approximately 15,00 faculty members’ list prepared by the Federation of Teachers’ Organizations in Busan Metropolitan City at the fifth floor of the building of the 5th floor of the 5th floor of the 5th floor of the 5th floor of the 5th floor of the 2015, and personal information, such as mobile phones, and was provided to the Plaintiff for the purpose of publicity for the sale of officetels through I. On April 3, 2015, Defendant A and leaked the above list of faculty members without legitimate authority.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, i.e., Defendant B.