1. As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there was no proof of crime on all of the facts charged against the Defendants on the violation of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 14080, Mar. 22, 2016; hereinafter “former Information and Communications Network Act”), and the violation of the former Credit Information Use and Protection Act (amended by Act No. 13216, Mar. 11, 2015; hereinafter “former Credit Information Act”) among the facts charged against the Defendants A and B.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint penal provisions under the former Information and Communications Network Act and the former Credit Information Act.

2. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants of the violation of the former Personal Information Protection Act (amended by Act No. 13423, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “former Personal Information Protection Act”) among the facts charged against the Defendants (excluding the part on acquittal).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of violation of Article 73 subparag. 1 of the former Personal Information Protection Act, the limit of delegated legislation, and joint penal provisions, and did not err by violating the principle of no punishment without the law and

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.