The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment that found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as conflict and mediation of sexual traffic, among the facts charged in the instant case, and dismissed the public prosecution against the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, not guilty and intimidation.

Accordingly, only the prosecutor appealed the part of conviction and innocence by misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing, and not filing an appeal as to the dismissed part of the prosecution.

Although the scope of appeal by the petition of appeal and the statement of reason for appeal state "total amount", the specific reasons of each of the above written documents do not state any dispute as to the rejection of the public prosecution. Therefore, the dismissed part of the public prosecution is deemed not to have been appealed.

Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is separately confirmed, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction and innocence.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning innocence (personal information protection) in the lower judgment) on the ground that the Defendant constitutes the representative of temporary occupant of the RR apartment, who is a personal information manager, thereby not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October, and eight hours of community service order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged should not be provided to a third party if the personal information manager does not obtain the consent of the subject of information or obtain the collected scope.

From February 2013, the Defendant is the president of the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Council of Temporary Residents' Representatives. From around March 2015, the Defendant copied 50 personal information that included 800 to 900 name, telephone number, and residential form, etc. of the above apartment occupant who had worked at the above apartment occupancy support center around March 2015.