beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. The Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A did not leak personal information (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles), and the sentence (an amounting to five million won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing). (b) Defendant B was placed in charge of the above agency business at the request of D (hereinafter “D”), a victimized company in the course of preparing for the establishment of a separate agency, which is a separate agency under the name of the Defendant B, and was merely taking over the branch’s contract, and did not acquire and use customer information, which is a business secret of D (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles). The sentence (two months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. The summary of the arguments presented by the defense counsel after the expiration of the period for filing the appeal, shall be determined within the scope of supplement of the reasons stated in the written appeal, and it shall not be determined separately as to the assertion not stated in the reasons for appeal.
2. Judgment on Defendant A’s appeal
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was disclosed without permission by entering personal information, such as G and H, the customer’s name, cell phone number, and vehicle number, which was known in the course of performing duties, in the D office located on the fourth floor of the F building of Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, in order to use for establishing and operating the H insurance agency, which is an individual insurance agency.
B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized in accordance with the record of the instant assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, the calendar of the Defendant’s use as a means of leakage of personal information as stated in the facts charged, is the calendar of the so-called “2017” indicating from December 2, 2016 to December 2, 2017, and the foregoing calendar was delivered to E agency around November 23, 2016, which was approximately one month before the month when 2017, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.