The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) It is true that Defendant A (i) made an inquiry into the details of N on the date and time stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, or it was only for arresting N, not for questioning upon Defendant A’s request, but for providing C with the details of the inquire.

Shebly, even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B only verified the N’s multiple times upon request by Defendant C because there are several recommendations, other than frauds, even though Defendant B was accused of frauds from N, and there is no fact that Defendant provided the multiple times to C.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, the health team, the lower court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, namely, ① the witness N of the lower court consistently hearing the police officer’s speech that he would resolve the instant case from the temporary light of the facts charged to the investigation agency up to this court, and the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office moved the Defendant at the parking lot of the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office and brought the Defendant before the Western Police Station.

The defendant stated that the situation at the time and the police officer's appearance, etc. were considerably and specifically stated; ② the defendant made several calls from March 14, 2013 to 20:58, the date when he asked about the N, and ② the defendant made several calls and received text messages from around 09:54 to 20:58, the date when he asked about the N, ③ the defendant made a statement that he received the personal information of N along with the request from P to arrest the N from P (Evidence No. 578 of the evidence record) but P did not know about the personal information of N at an investigative agency, and the defendant was informed.

I stated that there is a claim relationship between P and N, or P.