The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (in violation of the Medical Service Act) is recognized that the Defendant did not place an electronic signature on the medical record at the time of release of the patient’s personal information stored medical records.

However, the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 16375, Apr. 23, 2019; hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”) merely because the electronic signature system was not introduced to the hospital and there was no electronic signature on the record of obligation.

The exclusion from the application of Article 87 (1) 2 and Article 23 (3) of the same Act is against the legislative intent of the same Act and causes a gap in punishment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (2 million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. A prosecutor who made an ex officio determination on changes in the indictment was found not guilty at the court below for the first time, and requested changes in the indictment to add charges of violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, which disclosed other person's personal information in excess of the authority permitted as stated in the following facts, to the charges for violation of the Medical Service Act, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

As seen below, this Court acquitted the Defendant on the primary facts charged and convicted each of the ancillary facts charged, so this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

In addition, this part of the judgment below and the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act due to the use of personal information for purposes other than its original purpose are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. As to the primary facts charged.