The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 200,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendants conspired to provide a third party with personal information, such as the resident registration number and address, as stated in the facts charged in this case.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, we examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, and the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants at the trial of the prosecutor at the trial below 3.

The summary of the revised charges is as stated in the revised charges, and the applicable provisions of law are amended to "Article 71 subparagraph 1, Article 17 (1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 71 subparagraph 2, Article 18 (1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 71 subparagraph 2, Article 18 (1) of the same Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the party member applied for permission to amend the indictment

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

(a) No personal information controller shall use personal information or provide it to a third party beyond the scope of the purpose of collection;

The Defendants are those who operated a "G" company as an agent for building sale among the siblings, and are personal information managers of the employees of the above company.

Defendant

A, as a result of an examination by the Labor Agency on the grounds of unpaid wages to victims D, etc. who were employees of the above company, was not liable for the payment of wages during the period when the victim was dispatched to the company “E”.