The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the tenant representative of D apartment house in time of leisure.

From July 12, 2016 to July 19, 2016, the Defendant, as the representative of occupants, posted a “written statement of reasons” stating the name, date of birth, address, and telephone spread of the victim’s personal information on the said D apartment from July 12, 2016 to July 16, 2016.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the Personal Information Protection Act by divulging personal information of the victim who became aware of in the course of his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to public notices and reasons photographs;

1. Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. A fine of 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the former sentence is obvious in light of the following circumstances as a whole: (a) the fact that the defendant has no particular criminal record against the defendant; (b) the defendant's representative meeting of apartment occupants, as the chairperson of the council of apartment occupants, led to the crime of this case due to occupational loss in the course of informing the apartment occupants of the situation of the lawsuit with the victim; and (c) the defendant's age, sex, family relationship, environment, circumstances and result of the crime;

1. The notice of “written reasons” containing the victim’s name, date of birth, address, and telephone prosperity as stated in the facts constituting the crime is not the Defendant but the Defendant, but the Defendant’s representative meeting of the occupants of the DNA apartment, which was entrusted with the management of the said apartment.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be punished for the above act.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant held a meeting of occupants on July 4, 2016 to present the reasons.