The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in this case, writing such as private electromagnetic records.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of both the facts charged with writing, electronic records, etc., the use of crypical electromagnetic records, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act with respect to the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to ten months of imprisonment.

B. On the judgment of the court below, the defendant appealed on the ground of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the part concerning the exercise of private electronic records, etc., and the whole unfair sentencing, and the court prior to the remand dismissed the above appeal.

C. The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the party prior to remand on the grounds of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the part concerning the use of private electronic records, etc., and the use of private electronic records, etc.

The Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment of the party before remanding, which is related to the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, such as the former part of the judgment before remanding, and the latter part of the judgment before remanding.

E. Ultimately, according to the purport of the judgment of remand, the entire judgment of the court below constitutes the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant paid a penalty of KRW 80,00,000 for using the same student’s personal information among the facts charged in the instant case, he/she shall be sentenced to acquittal pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the legal principles in determining the guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On September 20, 2015, the Defendant, at around 05:57, is a portable information device from the G District District at the Southern Police Station G District (hereinafter “G District”) (hereinafter “G District”).