beta
Text
Defendant
A Of the crimes of subparagraph 1 of the judgment, the crimes listed in the annexed Table 1 to 13, and the crimes of subparagraph 2 of the judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A is a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and two years of suspended execution for violating the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information at the Gwangju District Court on June 12, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 20, 2013 and is still under suspended execution.
Defendant
A from around February 2010 to publish advertisements with “D”, “E”, etc. on the Internet, a person who has operated a so-called so-called crym center in which the spouse and the person who was requested to receive the consideration, collected materials related to the impergies, and investigated the movement route, location, etc. of the person requested. Defendant B was a person who had operated the said A and the so-called crym center from February 2013.
1. No one, other than a credit information company, etc., shall engage in business activities to identify the whereabouts and contact numbers of a specific person or to investigate the privacy other than commercial transaction relationships, such as financial transactions, while collecting, using, or providing the location information of an individual or mobile object without obtaining consent from the individual or the owner of the location information;
Nevertheless, on February 2013, the Defendants conspired and conspired to collect location information, such as the moving path, etc. of the above vehicle, by attaching one location tracking device, to the passenger nule of the above vehicle, and by collecting the vehicle’s personal information, such as the moving path, etc., on the Internet, from H, which reported the above Internet advertisement at a coffee shop near the G Hospital located in Gwangju Mine-gu, and at the request of H, which read, “I, the father, while having come to have all property, and the same male with the same male, changed to what extent,” and the Defendant B, who was aware of the location of the above vehicle by driving the vehicle.