The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 10-2(1) of the Act on the Management of Marriage Brokerage (hereinafter “Marriage Brokerage Act”) provides that users who have entered into a contract with an international marriage broker and obtain personal information from the other party to the marriage brokerage and are obliged to provide the other party with personal information in writing after obtaining certification from a notary public of the pertinent country. Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that matters necessary for the timing for providing personal information under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “the instant provision”) imposes the duty to provide the said personal information to “before 10,000”.

However, the instant provision does not provide for the time when personal information is provided under the superior law at all, but does not consider various circumstances such as easy securing of personal information, foreign institutions, laws and regulations, intentions of users, etc., actual provision of personal information, progress after international marriage, etc., and uniformly allow international marriage brokers to bear the personal information of users and others before the first maturity. It is invalid by deviating from the limitation of delegation legislation.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of violating the Act on the Management of Marriage Brokerage by applying the provision of this case which is invalid. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 10-2(1) of the Marriage Brokerage Act provides that "international marriage brokers shall obtain personal information from a user who entered into a contract and the other party of the marriage brokerage, respectively, from a notary public of the pertinent country, on the grounds that the judgment of the misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the misapprehension