The defendant is sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant is subject to 1 and 2 set forth in [Attachment 2] No. 2(1) of the judgment of the defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A On April 27, 2011, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced on 3 years of suspension of execution to 8 months of imprisonment for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, etc., and for the same year.

5. 5. A person whose judgment has become final and conclusive and is still under suspension of execution.

1. Defendant J

(a) No employee of a public institution that processes personal information in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and the Personal Information Protection Act shall divulge or process such information without authority or provide such information for another person's use;

Nevertheless, around April 18, 201, the Defendant inquired the police computer device based on M's resident registration number, asked the police computer device to inform the address, check M's address, and provided the personal information to A for use.

The Defendant provided public institutions’ personal information on seven occasions from the above date to October 6, 201 in a total of seven occasions as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form (1), including the above crimes, and used it for unfair purposes.

B. After the acceptance of a bribe, the Defendant is a person who served as the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Police Station Police Station 1 leader from June 18, 2010 to January 3, 2012.

1) On April 18, 2011, the Defendant, at the request of A, provided the address of Ma, personal information, via the police computer device, to A, in consideration of the provision, etc. of the Defendant’s personal information via the police computer device, around May 3, 2011, had A pay 1.1 million won of the litigation cost related to the Defendant’s request for an administrative appeal on the approval of the Defendant’s non-approval of medical care for official duties, on behalf of an attorney-at-law, the Defendant paid the Defendant an attorney-at-law for the same amount of profit. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties after receiving the aforementioned solicitation while in office as a public official, and received the bribe in relation to his duties.