Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, although the Defendant’s demand for data was based on justifiable grounds and did not have any disturbance to the extent that it could interfere with business affairs, and did not inflict an injury on the victim E and I, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which were duly adopted and examined by the court below to determine the assertion of mistake of fact, i.e., victim E, a victim E, in an investigative agency and the court of the court below, shall copy the multiple statements prepared by the victim E in person.

At the same time, the victim E was shaking and shaking his left arms, which led to the increase in the number of people, and the number of people was presented as a course of a course of study.

The statement, 2. The victim I stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that the defendant was sealed by the victim I, and that the defendant was in charge of the work at the hospital.

(3) At the time of the crime of this case

J concluded that in the court of the court below, the defendant had a big interest in gathering data, and obstructed the work of the defendant to return the customers who opened the mobile phone, and that the defendant was able to get off the victim E.

In light of the facts stated in the judgment below, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts of causing each injury to the victim E and I and the fact that the defendant interfered with the business of the victim G as stated in the judgment below, and the evidence submitted by the defense counsel is difficult to believe that it does not interfere with the establishment of the above crime and there is no other evidence to reverse it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is identical to the defendant.