The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: Defendant A did not have conspiredd to photograph CCTV images that the victim and tensiond women appeared with Defendant B in advance with Defendant B, but the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Personal Information Protection Act by misunderstanding the facts. Defendant B had already known that Defendant B had already entered the her motherel, or talked about such facts.

Even if a separate act of defamation cannot be deemed to be a separate act of defamation, and a talking to K with the instant videos cannot be recognized as a performance. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged of defamation.

B. In light of the legal principle, the lower court determined that the Defendants received the victim’s personal information from the Plaintiff, a personal information manager, despite the absence of the status of the personal information manager with respect to the CCTV image installed in security-based, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the personal information manager. 2) The Defendants’ act of violating the Personal Information Protection Act was conducted in order to demand correction of the victim’s act detrimental to the peace of the lodging, and was thus in violation of the social rules, and thus, dismissed the illegality. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendants of violating the Personal Information Protection Act.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The defense counsel of the defendant A of the judgment on the argument of mistake of facts in the judgment of the 1st trial of the court of the second trial of the trial of the party. The defendant A conspired to photograph CCTV images provided by the defendant B and I on the date of the second trial.