All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ act of holding the basic personal information of customers constitutes an act within the legitimate authority.

Defendants have the authority to retain personal information provided as insurance solicitors belonging to C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) who are insurance agencies.

Even if the defendants retire from C, it is necessary to continue to receive basic personal information of customers in order to provide them with information on maturity of insurance contracts and receive accidents.

In addition, the Defendants paid the price for the provision of personal information to C or acquired personal information without going through C, and in this respect, the Defendants have the right to retain personal information even after withdrawal.

The Defendants knew about the degree of retirement and severance from employment to customers, and did not use the customer’s personal information for insurance business, which is within the scope of the Defendants’ authority.

B. The Defendants did not have the intent to divulge personal information.

While withdrawing C, the Defendants did not delete the personal information of the customers stored in the mobile phone in order to provide information on the maturity of the insurance contract and receive accidents, and did not have any awareness that personal information is leaked.

C. The Defendants’ act is not against the intent of the subject of personal information or by consent.

The Defendants’ act does not go against the actual will of the rest of the customers except the customers in No. 1 of the Crime List No. 1 of the lower judgment.

Some customers contact the Defendants and expressed their intent to renew the insurance contract through the Defendants even after C resignation. D.

Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes an element of Article 71 subparag. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act, it is justified in light of the aforementioned circumstances, as it does not violate the act of work or other social rules.

E. Therefore, this case.