All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) did not err by misapprehending the facts (as to the guilty part of the lower court’s judgment (as to the point of damage to property), the Defendant did not have damaged CCTV camera owned by the victim.

2) Legal principles (as to the violation of Article 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act), the Defendant’s act was to find out his whereabouts in a sense of understanding about the mother’s awareness, which constitutes an act that does not constitute a punishment under Article 18(2)3 of the Personal Information Protection Act, or an act that is a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

3) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (No. 1: fine of KRW 300,00,000, and fine of KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts (the part not guilty (the invalidation of the indication in the line of duty) of the lower court is sufficiently recognized by the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily removed the notice put by the execution officer and thereby impairs its utility.

2) The above-mentioned sentence, which declared the first instance judgment of the sentencing unfair, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant’s ex officio examined the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the pleadings were combined in the court of first instance. Since each of the offenses listed by the judgment of the court of first instance is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance, which sentenced a separate punishment for each of the above crimes, and the judgment of the court

B. Of the judgment of the court below 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the guilty part and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed ex officio, but the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court

1) The lower court’s judgment on the damage of property.