All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) did not provide each of the personal information files listed in Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 in the annexed crime list 1 of the judgment below to G.

(B) Since the phone number provided by the Defendant in this case alone cannot identify who is the subject of the phone number, it does not constitute personal information subject to protection under the Personal Information Protection Act.

(C) The phone number provided by the Defendant in this case includes a number of mobile phone numbers generated by automatic biological devices, etc., and there is no proof that the phone number provided by the Defendant is an information on the “personal data” as provided by the Personal Information Protection Act.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. According to prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts, E, and F’s testimony, names of files stored in the external hardboard used by the defendant, and deposit details of the defendant’s bank transaction, etc., the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant disclosed personal information to D, E (attached Form 3-2) and F, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court related to personal information files that the Defendant provided to G with respect to the determination of the Defendant’s erroneous determination of facts and legal scenarios, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

(2) Whether the mobile phone number constitutes personal information (A) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act is the name, resident registration number, and personal information pertaining to an individual.