The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape) on the ground that the Defendant’s act of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, among the facts charged in the instant case, constitutes not a separate crime, on the ground that it was absorbed into a crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape).

As to this, only the defendant appealed on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, and the prosecutor did not appeal.

In such a case, the part of acquittal in the reasoning is also subject to the appellate trial along with the part of conviction in accordance with the principle of non-guilty appeal. However, since the part of innocence in the reasoning is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, it is not possible for the appellate court to re

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion on the part of acquittal on the grounds ought to be followed, and this court does not render a separate judgment.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defendants) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Ex officio determination on violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

A. A personal information manager of this part of the facts charged shall not use personal information beyond the scope according to the purpose of collection.

The Defendant is a person in charge of managing personal information, such as the telephone number and delivery place, which was affected by the Defendant’s “C” restaurant operated by the Defendant.

Around January 2019, the Defendant received an order for food delivery from the victim D (tentative name) and identified the victim's mobile phone number using the details of the order for food delivery, and used the victim's personal information beyond the scope of the purpose of collection by posting a telephone over several times, which is the victim's mobile phone number.

B. The lower court’s judgment is so decided.