The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one hundred months of imprisonment and confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) As to the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act due to the act of receiving personal information without the consent of the subject of information among the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional act of violating the Personal Information Protection Act since the Defendant was aware of the personal information received from L as normal information provided with the consent of the subject of information. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by

C. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 71 subparag. 2, Article 18(1), and Article 15(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (amended by Act No. 71 subparag. 5, Article 59 subparag. 2, and Article 3 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information) are amended to “Article 71 subparag. 2, Article 18(1), and Article 15(1) of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information” in Article 3 subparag. 5, Article 71 subparag. 2, and Article 59 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information,” and Article 3 subparag. 1-2 of the Act on the 3-A of the facts charged, “A person who has managed or processed personal information shall not divulge or leak any other person’s personal information which he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties without due authority.”