beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the following facts, Defendant 1’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant 1 guilty of each of the following charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
A) As to the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, “Leakage of personal information” under Article 59 subparag. 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act refers to the act of changing personal information to a third party other than a person who processes the personal information against the intent of the subject of information, and the Defendant is merely merely an acquisition of personal information that he/she was processed as a manager of the D website, and it does not constitute “Leakage”, since it does not constitute a “disclosure,” inasmuch as it does not constitute
B) Regarding the violation of the Copyright Act, the Defendant’s reproduction of the D website, etc. was made pursuant to the self-site establishment contract between the Defendant and theO on August 2, 2010, and the Defendant transferred all the rights of the Defendant, including the website, to the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim E”) and owned by the Defendant until May 2, 2016 after completing the transfer of ownership. Therefore, the Defendant’s reproduction of the initiative materials stored and managed on the D website on April 5, 2016 in a new account cannot be deemed as infringing on another’s property right.
2) In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case’s sentencing unfair, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. due to intrusion on information and communications networks (misunderstanding of legal principles), the service provider, which is the subject of granting access to the information and communications network in this case or setting the allowable scope, is not anO, but an O, which is the web hosting company.