The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The management body of D building, an aggregate building, which is a summary of the grounds for appeal, (hereinafter “management body”) concluded an entrustment contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) and entrusted the management of the said building to the Nonindicted Co., Ltd., and the Nonindicted Co., Ltd. collected and managed the personal information of shop occupants while managing the building as a trustee.

Therefore, since the representative committee of the management body collects and manages the personal information of shop occupants through the non-indicted corporation, the defendant, who was working for the committee for promotion of revitalization of D commercial buildings at the same time as the representative committee member of the management body, is a "personal information manager" under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant does not constitute "personal information manager" is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor changed the previous facts charged with not guilty in the original trial to the primary facts charged, and applied for permission to amend a bill of indictment added to the facts charged as the conjunctive facts charged below (the judgment in writing). This court permitted this to change the subject of the judgment, and as seen thereafter, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer since the facts charged in the conjunctive facts were found guilty.

However, the judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, this paper examines it.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the primary facts charged

A. The defendant is the managing body on the 11th floor of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building.