The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant delivered the written sales contract containing G’s personal information to a certified judicial scrivener, the certified judicial scrivener still holds the right to control G’s personal information as the Defendant was entrusted by the bank to which the Defendant belongs, and the certified judicial scrivener still holds the right to control G’s personal information, and as G consented to the provision of personal information to a third party, the delivery of the written sales contract does not constitute “discharge of personal information” under the Personal Information Protection Act. 2) The Defendant did not intend to deliver the written sales contract containing G’s personal information to the certified judicial scrivener by delivering the written sales contract including G’s personal information to the Defendant.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (one million won suspension of imposition of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. No person who manages or has processed the personal information of this case shall damage, destroy, modify, forge, or leak another person's personal information without due authority or beyond permitted authority.

Nevertheless, around October 15, 2013, the Defendant, while working as a bank source at the Korea Bank F branch in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, kept one copy of an officetel supply contract in which G’s name, resident registration number, address, etc. are stated, the Defendant, who was an employee of a certified judicial scrivener H office, had a title to the said contract.

Accordingly, the Defendant managed personal information and leaked another person's personal information without due authority or beyond permitted authority.

B. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by integrating the evidence in the judgment below.

C. The Defendant’s act of the first instance judgment is stipulated in the Personal Information Protection Act.