The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not notify C of D’s phone number, and the lower court erred by misapprehending C’s only the fact based on C’s statement although C’s statement was not reliable.

In addition, as C had already known the D phone number, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the Personal Information Protection Act even though the Defendant did not divulge or provide personal information.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the lower court’s ruling, it is deemed that “the Defendant was provided with D’s phone number” was reliable in the statement C.

We agree with the court below's finding the defendant guilty of facts charged on the grounds as stated in its judgment.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is difficult to accept.

1) On May 7, 2015, C made a statement at the prosecution that “I want to make a call once I want to come to the Defendant (D) and I met D at the coffee shop located in the Hanam Viewing (No. 2 right 99 pages)” (Evidence No. 2) C appeared as a witness on May 2, 2018 at the Jung-gu District Court 2018Kadan243 case, and the witness (C) asked A (the defendant) to be informed of the contact point so that I want to come to contact with D, and then asked A (the witness) to “I were the same as I were the same” in the question of “D and C-W-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.

(No. 81, 83 of the trial records, No. 91 of the evidence records) 3 C. The police call on July 6, 2018 to confirm whether D's mobile phone numbers are met, and the police asked whether D's cell phone numbers are met after D's cell phone numbers.