beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) and misunderstanding of facts, as indicated in the lower judgment, the lower court related to the re-information Nos. 1 to 105671 in the crime list as indicated in the lower judgment, obtained and provided the information listed in the Nos. 1 to 105671 in the crime inundation No. 1 to 105671 on October 29, 2015.
However, the court below determined that the Defendant’s use of NP was personal information acquired and provided through NP since January 2016, and that the storage form of the above information was different from that of NP Nos. 105672-397241, and that it is irrelevant to NP’s crime list 1-105671. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.
B) Of the re-informations No. 105672 to 397241 of the crime list No. 105672 to 397241 of the crime list No. 105 in the holding of the court below, among the re-informations No. 105672 to 397241 of the crime list in the holding of the court below, the Defendant provided 'the phone number' to the sexual traffic owners since the information provided to the NO server by the sexual traffic owners is not information provided by the Defendant to the sexual traffic owners.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to personal information, and the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the information, since the information on "area, type of business, and date and time of business" is merely the information of the owners of commercial sex acts, and cannot be viewed as personal information that can identify users of mobile phone numbers, and since it is obtained the consent of the owners of commercial sex acts at the time of acquisition, it is not obtained by false or other unlawful means or methods, and most of the stored information cannot be seen as information that could identify a specific individual.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a three-year imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant B’s acquittal portion and misunderstanding of sentencing) is erroneous.