The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts ① The disclosure of images by the Defendant is an inevitable act committed to the public interest, which is the normal opening of a union general meeting, among those hospitalized at a hospital for treatment by assault by F and K.

(2) The video disclosed by the Defendant does not include any information by which an individual can be identified, such as resident registration numbers, etc., and the matters of law, such as the face of assault, are not subject to protection under the Personal Information Protection Act.

(2) The Defendant did not know in advance that the Defendant’s motion picture delivery constitutes a crime in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “third argument”). B.

Punishments (fines 500,000) sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing are too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (i) The Defendant’s act of sending a video image of the above assertion was at the risk that the general meeting of the union would be in a crisis, and showed the video image to explain the situation to the former president and to seek assistance.

However, the above circumstance alone does not constitute a justifiable act because it is difficult to see that the purpose, which is a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, is justifiable, reasonable, reasonable, balanced, urgent, and complementary nature of the purpose, which is a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act

2. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act of the Republic of Korea provides “personal information” with respect to a living person, including information that can identify an individual through his/her name, resident registration number, image, etc. (including information that, if not by itself, makes it possible to identify a specific individual if combined with other information.

In light of the fact that the victim’s image is stipulated as “referring to the victim’s image is clear that the victim’s image constitutes personal information, and therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

Article 26(3) of the Act.