1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following dismissal or addition of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance and addition of the determination stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) Part 5 "C Team members" in Part 2 shall be raised to "D Team members".
② On the 4th page 15, the phrase “emergency arrest” was taken to the effect that “the arrest was made in accordance with the warrant of arrest issued.”
③ On the 6th page 9 through 16, the Plaintiff committed a violation of the Personal Information Act by providing a police officer’s personal information to E without the consent of the subject of information, and E, in collusion with F to arrange for a similar act by arranging sexual traffic women to do so, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. by providing a police officer’s personal information from the Plaintiff without the consent of the subject of information, and the Plaintiff was prosecuted for committing the crime of violation of the Personal Information Act. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 25 million, and E was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da187 Decided April 22, 2014), and the part of the above judgment against the Plaintiff was finalized on April 30, 2014, and the Plaintiff and the prosecutor appealed the judgment of conviction against the Plaintiff on October 2, 2014, but the judgment was dismissed by the final judgment on February 12, 2015).
2. Although the number of police officers related to the control of a sexual traffic business site leaked considerably less than 379 cases, the defendant taken the instant disposition by deeming that the plaintiff leaked all the above 379 information, and the plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful on the premise that it is based on the fact-finding and illegal.
Domins, Gap's 12 to 14, Gap's .