Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. From the judgment of the court below of the first instance, the defendant violated the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act. The defendant merely consulted a credit information company about whether or not the above person's property relations can be identified on the basis of monetary claims such as E and G, loans, etc., but the credit information company's employee Eul arbitrarily conducted credit information inquiry in violation of the law. Even if the defendant offered with B, the credit information company's employee did not know that the credit information inquiry was illegal, and there was no awareness of illegality in the case of civil claims. However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on a different premise of the judgment of the court below was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) Of the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the defendant forged and used private documents as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the defendant did not participate. In particular, this part of the facts charged did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged of this case, but did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles by allowing the defendant and the defendant to use the above private documents.

B. As to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed an act identical to that stated in this part of the facts charged, in view of the presumption that the defendant was presumed to have known to the office of a certified judicial scrivener the name of the heir, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged on a different premise.