Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

However, with respect to Defendant A, it shall be for 3 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who has engaged in loan brokerage business under the trade name of “F” (mutual change fromG), and Defendant B was a person who had been working as a chief executive officer of Law Firm I located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H from January 2013.

On February 2013, the Defendants came to know through the Internet car page operated by Defendant B, and Defendant A introduced the individual rehabilitation applicants to Defendant B, Defendant B promised to give 500,000 won to each individual rehabilitation applicants in return for the acceptance of counseling related to the acceptance of the individual rehabilitation applications case against the above persons, and Defendant B promised to give 50,000 won to each individual rehabilitation applicants case.

1. Defendant A

A. On March 25, 2013, the Defendant violated the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.: (a) received a transmission of a file containing personal information, such as the name, telephone number, resident registration number, etc., from a person who was already aware of via the Internet (NAD: K), at the above F Office No. 1702, in return for paying KRW 50 per case of personal information from a person who was aware of the Internet.

In addition, from around that time to March 11, 2014, the Defendant was provided with personal information of 628,733 persons through the above method 101 times in total, such as the list of annexed crimes (1). At that time, the Defendant was aware of the personal information divulged in light of the method of receiving the personal information and the details of the personal information provided.

Accordingly, the Defendant knew of the divulgence of personal information, received the personal information for profit or illegal purpose.

B. The Defendant in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act employed L and M, and let them confirm personal information, debt relationship, etc. while making a false telephone conversation using personal information acquired as referred to in the preceding paragraph, and induce them to provide counseling on personal rehabilitation applications with the chief of the office of law I, and specific individual rehabilitation applications.