The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit by the court below shall be borne by the defendant.

1. On December 11, 2020, the gist of the appeal shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of legitimate grounds for appeal, which is not timely filed by the defense counsel after the gist of the appeal is too excessive.

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have revealed to D, F and H that he was a public interest reporter.

2) E merely provides information for the purpose of preventing any disadvantageous personnel measures against himself/herself, it does not constitute a public interest reporter under the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act.

3) Even if E is a public interest reporter, it is not constituted an offense since E was publicly notified as a public interest reporter.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant, at the lower court’s judgment, made the same assertion as that of the grounds for appeal Nos. 1 and 3, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in its reasoning and judgment based on the summary of the evidence.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion that there was no statement from D, F, and H that E was a public reporting person, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s assertion that E was a public reporting person, such as the facts charged, to D, F, and H.

① In the investigation agency, “The Defendant directly testified that he was a public interest reporter at the time of telephone conversations with D members around 15:00 on June 14, 2019.” The court below testified to the same effect (the investigation record No. 17 pages, No. 183 of the trial record). The court below stated that “The Minister of Maritime Affairs and Family Affairs stated in the investigation agency that “The Defendant, while making a telephone conversation with D members, made several calls that the E-ray was a public interest reporter.”