All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant (De facto mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles) delivered a sales contract containing G’s personal information to a certified judicial scrivener, the above certified judicial scrivener still holds control over G’s personal information as he was entrusted by the bank to which the Defendant belongs, and the above certified judicial scrivener is a trustee who is entrusted with the management of personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act. Since G consented to the provision of personal information to a third party, the delivery of the sales contract does not constitute “discharge” under the Personal Information Protection Act.

In addition, the relevant punishment provision of the Personal Information Protection Act can be punished only when it is intentional, and the defendant has no intention to divulge personal information.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won suspension of imposition of a fine) against the Defendant against the prosecutor (unfair punishment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, G entered into an intermediate payment loan agreement with the bank around February 20, 2012 in relation to the contract for the sales of officetels concluded on February 20, 2012. The bank received an officetel supply contract from several buyers including G in relation to the above loan agreement and prepared and received a written consent for the collection, use and provision of personal information. The Defendant was in charge of the above officetel intermediate payment loan, but the instant officetel was completed, and the intermediate payment loan was converted into a real estate loan. However, G was in conflict with the City event due to problems such as delay in completion, and it would refuse to convert the real estate security loan to the Defendant from August 19, 2013, and implement the direct ownership transfer registration procedure.