The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a personal information manager as the head of the management office of the D apartment.

A personal information manager may provide personal information only to the extent of the purpose of collecting the personal information.

Nevertheless, around February 12, 2014, the Defendant provided the D Apartment Management Office, which is a resident of the above apartment, to the Association at his own discretion beyond the purpose of collecting the occupancy numbers and the like, E, F, G, H, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, and N's telephone numbers and the like.

2. Defendant B is an employee of D apartment construction workO.

On February 12, 2014, the Defendant received personal information from the head of the management office of the above D apartment management office, including the phone number of 10 residents of the above D apartment, including E, and the same.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. The written accusation, the investigation report (teleline investigation), the investigation report (LH Rental Asset Management Team's inquiry), the application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the place of offense;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Matters and the Defendants’ Selection of Punishment: Subparagraph 1 of Article 71 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 17 (1) Item 2 of the same Act;

1. Sentence Defendants: 300,000 won per fine; and

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (in the case of 100,000 won per day);

1. The Defendants of suspended sentence: (a) under each of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence to determine whether they were legitimate acts (such as: (b) the Defendants were the first offender; (c) the Defendants were aware that the provision of information containing personal information and the acquisition thereof would conflict with the law; and (d) the Defendants were to provide the occupants with the same class and telephone number for the purpose of the investigation of defects for the public interest; and (c) the Defendants were to obtain the consent of the occupants ex post facto; and (d) the Defendants A did not obtain the consent of the occupants on February 7, 2012 without the prior consent of the occupants.