All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court prior to the amendment by Act No. 12504, Mar. 24, 2014.

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 74 was found guilty of violating the Personal Information Protection Act among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that Article 74 of the Act extends the scope of persons subject to penal provisions to a person who actually executes the relevant duties, and the F’s designated receipt and disbursement of materials perused by the Defendant constitutes “personal information” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Personal Information Protection Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 74 of the Personal Information Protection Act or the legal principles on the scope of personal information

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Digitalization of Criminal Justice Process in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Digitalization of Criminal Justice Process among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its holding, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of “criminal justice information system” under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the former Act on Promotion of the Digitalization of Criminal Justice

B. As to the grounds of appeal on the waiver of duty, the lower court acknowledged the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and thereby impeding the function of the State and causing damage to the people by neglecting or abandoning the Defendant’s act with awareness of its duties.