The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and suspension of qualifications for A, for six months and for defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts (as to Defendant 1’s conviction) is the video information processing device as indicated in the lower judgment’s criminal facts for the purpose of crime prevention (hereinafter “instant video information processing device”).

(2) Defendant B did not take part in the installation and management of the instant visual data processing devices, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants violated the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part of acquittal in the original trial), the location where the Defendant installed the instant visual data processing device is the president of a hospital that is difficult to be deemed private space, and the contents of recorded conversations are also related to the operation of a hospital. As such, given that the Defendants collected in the course of operating a hospital, there are business relations with the video and voice information collected by the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants’ act of acquiring the said information by unlawful means constitutes a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on the Personal Information Protection Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The above sentence imposed

2. The Defendants asserted that the judgment of the lower court on the erroneous determination of facts by the Defendants is identical to the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected all the above arguments by clearly explaining the judgment in the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” of the lower judgment.

The judgment of the court below on this part.