The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine as seen below.

(1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the facts constituting the crime on the list of crimes listed in the separate sheet of crimes are nothing more than the details of the clients’ deposits, and the date, time, place, method, and details of the crime are not specified. Therefore, the instant prosecution should be dismissed.

(2) In the crime list Nos. 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23 through 31, 36, 43, 44, 47, 51, 53, 56 through 59, 61 through 63, 65 through 73, 75 through 79, 85 through 87, 95, 97, 97, 98, 90, 100, 104, and 105 of the crime list in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “part of the facts charged in this case”), the defendant simply consulted with the clients, and since the defendant did not know the location and contact information of a specific person or investigated his private life, the facts charged in this case do not constitute the element of the crime in this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) ; (2) Articles 50(2)7 and 40 subparag. 4 of the Credit Information Act punish “a person who, not a credit information company, etc., knows the location and contact details of a specific person or investigates private life, other than commercial transaction relationships, including financial transactions, by finding out the location and contact details of a specific person; and in the case of comprehensive daily crimes such as business crimes, etc., even though not specifically specify the individual acts constituting a part of the crime, the crime is specified if the whole period and period of the crime, method of the crime, frequency of the crime, total amount of damage, and the victim or the other party are clearly stated (see Supreme Court Decision 197 May 30, 199).