The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (hereinafter referred to as 300,000 won) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for permission to amend an indictment, the prosecutor examined the facts charged by the court below ex officio, and the prosecutor maintained the facts charged as the primary charges and added "Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act" in the preliminary application of the law, and applied for permission to amend an indictment with the same content as that of the criminal history of the following facts charged (re-written judgment). Since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it was, since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

B. On the facts charged, the Defendant is an employee at the Busan Doo-gu Busan Doo-gu, Dao-gu, which is operated by the victim B and C, and the said victims are those who manage personal information in order to operate a personal information file for the purpose of business by installing CCTV, which is a visual data processing device, in the above Doo-gu kindergarten.

On March 22, 2019, the Defendant: (a) connected the CCTV inside a mobile phone with the victim’s mouth, and recorded the images of the victim’s strong speech with the Defendant’s mobile phone; and (b) provided F and cabs with the aforementioned CCTV images on March 22, 2019 by means of viewing and showing them to F.

Accordingly, the defendant provided F with personal information of victims who are data subjects without the consent of the victims, without justifiable reasons.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of primary charges by taking account of the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

3) The evidence submitted by the relevant prosecutor alone is difficult to view the Defendant as a person who manages personal information as stipulated in Article 17(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, and it is otherwise recognized.