The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing the facts of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, the local law that does not issue a marriage relation certificate before marriage in the case of Vietnam is not possible, and since there are practical problems that make women unable to prepare personal information documents due to expenses, etc. before marriage brokerage, it is inappropriate to hold the Defendant liable for such damages, since personal information certified by a national notary public of the other country of the other party to marriage brokerage before marriage brokerage was not provided to the user who entered into an international marriage brokerage contract.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to provide personal information under Article 10-2 of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act (hereinafter “Marriage Business Act”), which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s failure to provide personal information prior to the arrival of the marriage brokerage business in violation of Article 10-2 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act cannot be justified or the Defendant’s liability cannot be denied solely on the grounds as alleged above by the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is not accepted.

B. The Defendant appears not to have properly acknowledged his mistake by asserting that he was not guilty of the instant crime. However, the Defendant, in 1988, recognized the facts themselves of the instant crime, and the Defendant did not have any other punishment except for the punishment of a fine imposed once in violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act in 198, and the Defendant provided personal information of the other female women late after the arrival of the other female women of the F, H, and J, who wished to enter into international marriage, and omitted or omitted important matters in personal information provided.