The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The amount of personal information, etc. actually received or divulged by Defendant (1) by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is less than the number indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and there was no profit-making or unjust purpose in light of the circumstance of being provided with the phone number of a proxy driver to exclude him from those subject to the dispatch of printed text after commencing the publicity activities on telephone.

(2) The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor Defendant did not cooperate in the investigation, the first instance court’s punishment is too unfeasible.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was exposed to the Defendant’s substitute driver’s contact address, customer contact information from E, departure and arrival place, etc., including 12,602,324 items of agency driver’s customer information from E for the purpose of promoting his/her agency driver’s business, and was provided with personal information for profit or unjust purpose. The Defendant’s transmission to H’s computer to divulge another’s confidential information, and the Defendant’s transmission of files consisting of 93,820 items of cell phone number from H for the purpose of using the divulged information for profit or unjust purpose, such as exclusion from sending books. After that, even if the Defendant did not use all such personal information in actual public relations activities, this does not affect the judgment above, and even if the Defendant was provided with a cell phone number for the purpose of excluding the authorized driver’s license.