The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the violation of the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information among the facts charged in the instant case, and the lower court’s judgment that did not appeal the part of not guilty was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below's acquittal was excluded from the scope of this court's trial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each employer stated in the facts charged of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “each owner of the instant case”) does not constitute a “personal information processor” under the Personal Information Protection Act.

In addition, since each owner of the instant case does not constitute “a person who provides personal information to a third party without the consent of the subject of information” under the former part of Article 71 subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, the Defendant cannot be punished by applying the latter part of Article 71 subparag. 1 and Article 17(1)1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, and the Defendant’s act of reading or photographing CCTV without permission cannot be deemed as “the act of receiving it” under the latter part of Article 71 subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Even if the act as stated in this part of the facts charged satisfies the requirements of the latter part of Article 71 subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, it constitutes a justifiable act to confirm a spouse’s wrongful act.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. 2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court.