The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment shall be suspended against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to inform the elderly debtor H of the fact that his residence is expected to be auctioned, the defendant A used the phone number as stated in the instant consent, not the above phone number (i.e., the above phone number for credit collection business). The defendant A knew that the above phone number would be H and asked J to have been telephone conversations without any specific paragraph at the time J, and J also anticipated that the phone number could be called due to H's obligation, so there was an implied consent to the use of the phone number as stated in the instant consent (ii) and ratification (iii) there was no criminal intent to commit a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (iii) on the telephone number as stated in the instant consent, and thus it is impossible for the defendant A to specify the scope of consent to use the personal information as stated in the instant consent, and thus, it does not constitute an act of using the above phone number beyond the scope of consent to use the personal information under the instant consent (iv). The defendant A's act of using the above phone number constitutes an unlawful auction of the defendant A's residence.

B. The sole part of Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) held by Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. with considerable attention and supervision to prevent Defendant A from committing the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) (1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ①., the Defendants’ assertion.