Defendant 1 and five others

Maximum Constitution (prosecution, public trial)

Attorneys Kim Jung-sik et al.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, by a fine of 7,00,000 won, by a fine of 4,00,00 won, by a fine of 5,00,00 won, and by a fine of 5,00,00 won, and by a fine of 6 months, respectively.

When Defendant 3, 4, and 5 fail to pay each of the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishments against the defendant 2 and 6 shall be suspended.

The list No. 4 and 5 of the protocol of seizure No. 1708 at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office that was seized shall be confiscated from Defendant 2 and 4 respectively.

24,100,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Defendant 3, 4, and 5 shall order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. All the defendants' identity and other facts

Defendant 3 is a person in charge of managing personal information at one team of the organization of ○○○○○○ Party, a personal information manager, from around November 201 to March 201. Defendant 1 is the head of the civil petition office , from around June 30, 2008 to around June 30, 209; Defendant 2 is the National Assembly Policy Researcher (Grade 2) from around July 1, 2009 to around June 30, 201; Defendant 2 is a person who provided the online personal information service of Nonindicted Party 4 with an incidental business for the purpose of operating ○○○○○○ Party from around August 201 to around May 2012, 201; Defendant 1 is a person who provided the online personal information file with Nonindicted Party 2, a person who was in charge of operating 200○○○ Party’s online service; Defendant 2 is a person who was in charge of operating the online personal information file with Nonindicted Party 4, a director of the company.

2. The criminal conduct committed by the defendant 1 and 3 in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act;

Around November 201, Defendant 1 agreed to receive KRW 1 from KRW 0.5 won per text message, which was introduced by Defendant 2, Defendant 4, etc. in return for the introduction of Nonindicted 36, the party executive staff member of the Daejeon Metropolitan City of ○○○○○○, in relation to the election of Defendant 19th National Assembly members, in relation to the election campaign text messages and Internet telephone services of Nonindicted 4, including the list of applicants for official election for each region, and introduce the candidates who were recruited by Defendant 2 to Defendant 2, and promote Defendant 2’s business. In order to help the candidates conduct the business, Defendant 1 agreed to receive KRW 1 from KRW 0.5 per text message, which was sent by Defendant 2.

Defendant 1, through Defendant 3, offered a list of party members containing personal information such as the name, address, telephone number, resident registration number, etc. of ○○○○○ Party members through Defendant 3 to some candidates and their assistants for use in the process of official election, such as competition for the candidate in the political party. Furthermore, in order to maximize profits under the agreement with Defendant 2, Defendant 2 provided a list of party members to candidates who are related to Defendant 2 and themselves, provided a list of party members to promote the company members and induce Defendant 2 to enter into a contract for text messages, and Defendant 3 recruited to connect Defendant 1 to the system for inspection of the party members list of ○○○○ Party members under his control to deliver text messages to Defendant 1 by e-mail the list of party members in the region requested by Defendant 1 and the files copied of the entire party members list.

According to the above public offering, the Defendants: (a) from January 2012 to February 2012, Defendant 1 entered personal information, such as the name, telephone number, address, election district, source of responsibility, e-mail, etc. of the party members to Defendant 3 using the Kakakao Text messages, telephone, etc.; and (b) so designated within ○○○○○○○○ Party as an external expense; (c) requested to deliver a list of the entire party members of 2,200,000 local constituencies, including the list of individual regions such as Busan; and (d) sent it to Defendant 2 via e-mail, etc.; and (e) sent it again to Nonindicted 2, on January 31, 2012, Defendant 1 sent a list of the party members of ○○○○○ Party to Nonindicted 3 via e-mail, etc., the entire list of the party members from around 21, 2012 to around 21, Defendant 201.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to divulge personal information that they came to know in the course of their duties, provided another person with no authority to use it, and leaked another person's personal information without legitimate authority or beyond permitted authority.

3. Defendant 1’s crime;

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

The defendant is a person who was in office as the head of the civil petition1 team in the civil petition state around March 2009.

Of March 2009, Non-Indicted 26, who was in close relationship with the Defendant’s society, entered into an underwriting contract for △△ Broadcasting, which is an cable broadcasting station in the area of Do, Do, Do, in the middle of the middle of March 2009, and was in a crisis for which the underwriting contract would be unconcepted due to the renewal of the operation of the broadcasting station, upon the request from Non-Indicted 27 to Defendant 1, who is the executive officer of Gun, Do, and so that the authorization for the operation of the broadcasting station may be renewed. The Defendant received from Non-Indicted

After that, at the Korea Communications Commission around March 30, 209, the conditional renewal decision of the license for the operation of the above broadcasting station was made on or after six months, and around April 30, 2009, the non-indicted 26, who received 10 million won from the non-indicted 27 to the non-indicted 30 bank's account, and received 80 million won in total from the non-indicted 26 bank's account under the name of the non-indicted 300 won, and received 200 million won in total from the non-indicted 30 million won in the name of the non-indicted 26 bank's new bank's account renewal decision around April 30, 209 to the non-indicted 30, and the defendant received 200 million won in the name of the non-indicted 300,000 won in total from the non-indicted 260,000 won in the name of the non-indicted 300,000 won.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted 26 in sequence to receive money in relation to matters pertaining to public official's duties.

(b) Property in breach of trust;

The Defendant, from November 201 to January 201, 201, who was employed as the Director General of ○○○○○○○ Party’s Manife the 19th National Assembly member election, informed Defendant 2 of his internal information, such as the list of applicants for the official election of Defendant 19 National Assembly members, and provided information and a list of party members, etc. to the preliminary candidates for ○○○○○○ Party and their assistants on public relations so that they can enter into a contract for sending text messages with the aforementioned company operated by Defendant 2 while concluding the contract for sending text messages with the preliminary candidates for each local constituency nationwide of ○○○○○ Party, and made an illegal solicitation to request the Defendant to obtain the list of party members whose external leakage is prohibited, for public relations purposes or for sale of text messages. On or around February 1, 2012 and around March 12, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 400 million from each of the above national bank’s total account.

As a result, the Defendant acquired the property as above in exchange for an illegal solicitation regarding his duties, such as fair competition management, confidentiality, prohibition of leakage of materials, as a party executive staff member of ○○○○ Party.

4. Joint-crimes due to the acts of receiving the list of party members and processing, such as editing and storing the list of party members.

around November 201, Defendant 2 agreed to distribute the profits of one won per text message to Defendant 1 in return for Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 to assist Defendant 1 in the election campaign-related text message business of Nonindicted Company 4 in the same way as that of paragraph 3 in the process of the election of the ○○○○○○○○ Party and the 19th National Assembly member.

Defendant 2 entered into an election campaign text messages in the process of selecting a candidate for a National Assembly member by publicizing that ○○○○○○ Party’s preliminary candidate or its assistant members holding the above party members list or providing or selling it directly to candidates, and furthermore, Defendant 2 continued to use it in the presidential election and local election in the future.

Defendant 2: (a) from January 2012 to February 2012, Defendant 1’s personal information, Defendant 3, an employee of ○○○○○○ Party, who was in charge of managing the party membership and the party member registry in the country of organization of ○○○○○○○ Party, divulged the list of party members containing personal information such as the name, address, telephone number, resident registration number, e-mail, responsible party member; and (b) disclosed it to some candidates, election campaign workers, etc. on several occasions; and (c) subsequently, Defendant 2 demanded Defendant 1 to make a list of party members of each region, such as Jinju, Cheongju, Busan, etc., in order to enter into the contract for the provision of text messages services. Furthermore, Defendant 1 demanded the list of party members of ○○○ Party, who were the personal information manager of ○○○○ Party, and received it through

On the other hand, around February 14, 2012, Defendant 2 stored the X-S file format in the company office located in Seo-gu, Daejeon ( Address omitted), had Nonindicted 6, an employee, convert it into the X-gu file, and ordered Defendant 4 to edit and store it for each City/Do across the country. Defendant 4 stored the files of the entire party members list received from Defendant 1 in the external flads of Defendant 4, stored them into the external flads of Defendant 4, stored them into the flads, stored them in the flads, stored in the 13 local districts, such as Changwon and Kimhae, and ordered Defendant 5 to store them again at the flads, and deliver them to Defendant 5.

Defendant 4: (a) around February 14, 2012, at the above office around February 2012, Defendant 2 opened a file for the above list of party members of the Republic of Korea from Defendant 2; (b) converted it from around that time to February 2, 2012 to X-cell file; and (c) compiled it in 13 regions, such as Changwon and Kim Sea, and stored it in his external fluor; and (d) stored it again at the U.S expense and delivered it to Defendant 5.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to disclose the list of members of the private information that is personal information that ○○○○ Party’s personal information manager and Defendant 1 came to know in the course of performing their duties, or provided the Defendants with the list of members containing personal information from Defendant 1 through e-mail for profit-making or illegal purposes, etc., even if he knew of the fact that he provided it without authority, and at the same time acquired a list of members of the private information members by unlawful means or methods such as promise to pay the above profits, etc. with Defendant 1, and managed it without obtaining a separate consent from ○○ Party members, an owner of information, even though he did not demand or permit the management of sensitive information, which is

5. Joint crime committed by Defendant 2, 4, and 5 due to the leakage of personal information, such as the list of party members on Nonindicted 7

The Defendants conspired to sell the lists of party members of the ○○○○○○○○○○ Party that was edited as above to Nonindicted 7, a political consulting business entity, around February 14, 2012, and told Nonindicted 7 to have telephone conversations introduced by Defendant 1 at the office of Nonindicted Company 4, and to request that Nonindicted 7 store at least 100,000 mobile phone numbers of the area desired, such as the party members list, in which Nonindicted 7 was stored. After compiling the lists of party members of the ○○○○○○ Party located in the Masan area by converting them to the e-mail file, the Defendants stored the list in the e-mail and sent it to Defendant 5. Defendant 4 at around that time, Defendant 4 converted the list of party members of the Masan area to the e-mail account under the direction of Defendant 2, stored the list in the e-mail name of Defendant 5, and received the e-mail transfer from Defendant 47 e-mail account under the above e-mail name of Defendant 5.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to disclose to Nonindicted 7, etc. personal information, which is personal information that he/she became aware of in the course of his/her duties, the list of party members, and the compiled names, telephone numbers, addresses, etc., and did not require or permit the management of sensitive information, which is personal information about whether a political party is admitted or not, the Defendants processed the personal information without obtaining

6. The sole crime by Defendant 2;

A. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act;

On February 21, 2012, the Defendant issued to Defendant 6, an operator of Nonindicted Company 8, who was the operator of the Internet telephone service system and the server management agency for Nonindicted Company 4’s election campaign text messages transmission business, a list of party members in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, which was actually a partner in the election-related business process, as above.

Accordingly, the Defendant disclosed the list of party members, which are personal information that he had become aware of in the course of performing his duties, to Defendant 6, and did not require or permit the management of sensitive information, which is personal information about whether to join a political party, to ○○○ Party members, who are data subjects, without obtaining a separate consent.

(b) Property in breach of trust;

From November 201 to January 201, 2012, the Defendant informed Defendant 1, in relation to the 19th National Assembly member election, of inside information, such as the list of applicants for official election at ○○○○○○ Party, in relation to the support for youth activities at ○○○○ Party, publicity to enable preliminary candidates and their assistants to enter into a contract for sending text messages with Nonindicted Company 4 that he/she operates, while providing information related to official election and a party member list, etc., and made an improper solicitation to request the Defendant to obtain a list of party members whose external leakage is prohibited from being used or sold for public relations when concluding a contract for sending text messages with prospective candidates at ○○○○ Party nationwide. From October 5, 201 for each case of sending text messages to 10.5 won to 19 billion won to 10 million won to 200 million won to 200 million won to 200,000 won to 240,000 won to 200 National Bank.

Accordingly, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation on Defendant 1’s duties as a party executive staff member of the Secretariat of ○○○○○○ Party, such as fair competition management, confidentiality, prohibition of leakage of data, and provided property as above.

(c) Assistance in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

The prosecutor belonging to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office was arrested on April 26, 2012 and detained by this court on April 26, 2012, when he/she fully conducts investigation in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Mediations) against Non-Indicted 26 in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (In Suwon District Prosecutors' Office No. 2012, No. 23086, May 11, 2012). After Non-Indicted 26 was arrested to the prosecutor on April 23, 2012 and requested a detention warrant on April 25, 2012, Defendant 1, an accomplice of Non-Indicted 26, was subject to the investigation of the above case.

Upon hearing from Defendant 1 on the above contents of the case, the Defendant lost his status as disciplinary action against Defendant 1, etc. due to the investigation of the case, thereby preventing any disruptions to Defendant 1’s character business and election-related business through Defendant 1, and concealing the fact that Defendant 1 received money and valuables from Nonindicted 26 in the name of ○○ Broadcasting, etc., Defendant 1 prevented the progress of an investigation related to the case in order to conceal the fact that Defendant 1 received money and valuables from Nonindicted 26 in the name of ○○ Broadcasting, and in response, Defendant 1 introduced persons

around April 25, 2012, the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 1, a legal assistant, to Defendant 1 at a coffee shop near the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) on his own region, and made it necessary to find out the status of the investigation into the above case in favor of Nonindicted 1 through Nonindicted 1, and to stop the investigation, and to give money and valuables to Nonindicted 1. The Defendant immediately received KRW 10 million from Defendant 1 to the post office account in the name of Nonindicted 33 used for the Defendant’s management through Defendant 1’s friendship and received KRW 50 million from Defendant 1 on April 26, 2012, “In order to resolve the instant case, KRW 50 million is necessary,” and Defendant 1 received KRW 1,50,000,000 from Defendant 1, and received KRW 1,500,000 from Defendant 1, and received KRW 1,500,000 from Defendant 2,50,000,000 from Defendant 1.

Accordingly, the Defendant, despite being aware of the circumstances in which Nonindicted 1 received money and valuables from Defendant 1 under the pretext of solicitation regarding the cases dealt with by a public official as above, introduced Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 1 as above, and aided and abetted Nonindicted 1’s crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by receiving money from Defendant 1 through his own borrowed account and delivering it to Nonindicted 1 in cash.

7. Defendant 6’s crime;

The Defendant, who became aware of Nonindicted Company 4 and Nonindicted Company 4’s joint representative in the process of running Internet telephone services, obtained the list of party members from Defendant 1, and entered into a contract with Defendant 2 to exchange telephone database and provide Internet telephone services with the assistant officers of the National Assembly members of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party, and came to know of the fact that he provided the above party members list against the assistant officers of the National Assembly members. After receiving the above party members list from Defendant 2, the Defendant used the above party members list for the business of its operation, such as providing them to Nonindicted 39, who are its affiliate employees related to the sending of election campaign text messages, such as competition of candidates for the National Assembly members of the National Assembly members of the Dong-gu Busan City area.

On February 21, 2012, Defendant 2, an operator of Nonindicted Company 4, who is a personal information manager, acquired a list of party members containing personal information, such as the name, address, resident registration number, telephone number, etc. of the party members of ○○○○○○ Party, by unlawful means from Defendant 1, etc., and, even if Defendant 2 knew of the fact that he/she disclosed personal information that he/she became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties, Defendant 2 sent the list of party members via his/her e-mail from Defendant 2 to Nonindicted 39, who was his/her partner, for the purpose of using such personal information for the business related to a candidate for a National Assembly member of Busan Dong-gu, Busan, 2012, on February 21, 2012.

Accordingly, Defendant 2, who is a personal information manager, received the above personal information while being aware of the fact that Defendant 2 acquired the above personal information by an unlawful means or method, and at the same time received the above list of party members, who are personal information that Defendant 2 knew in the course of performing his/her duties, with knowledge of the fact that Defendant

In addition, although the Defendant, a personal information manager, disclosed personal information he/she learned in the course of performing his/her duties to Nonindicted 39, and does not require or permit the management of sensitive information, which is personal information about whether to join a political party, under the law, he/she processed the personal information without obtaining a separate consent

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 1 and 2 and each legal statement of the defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6;

1. Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 26’s each legal statement and each legal statement of Nonindicted 27, 40, and 41 of the witness (Defendant 1)

1. Defendant 4’s legal statement (Defendant 2)

1. Non-Indicted 27’s statement in the third trial records in the instant case No. 2012 Gohap341, and Non-Indicted 42’s statement in the fifth trial records in the same case, and a copy of the sixth trial records in the same case.

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 3, 4, 6, 5 and Nonindicted 7, 43, 3, 44, Gangwon-gu, Nonindicted 46, 2, 19, and 17, and each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 1, 2, and 26 (including each statement written in Nonindicted 29, 27) of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 3, 4, 6, 5, and Nonindicted 7

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 47, 41, 39, 48, 6, 27, 42, 29, and 30

1. Each written statement prepared by the defendant 5, 4, 3, 6 and non-indicted 49, 50, 51, 3, 52, 19, 27, and 53

1. Records of seizure by prosecution;

1. 수사보고(피내사자 피고인 1 상품권, 수첩 자료 사본 첨부), 수사보고(피내사자 피고인 1의 카카오톡 대화 내용 편철), 카카오톡 대화내용, 수사보고(피내사자 피고인 1 카카오톡 관련 자료수집 편철), ○○○당 공천위 비례대표 후보자 추천 명단, △△△△△ 인터넷화면 캡쳐, 공소외 4 회사 등기사항전부증명서, 수사보고(피내사자 피고인 1 국민은행계좌 등 거래내역 확인), 피고인 1 명의 국민은행계좌 거래내역, 한화증권 주식거래내역, ○○○당 각 지역구 공천신청현황, ○○○당 공직후보자 추천명단, 수사보고(피고인 3 및 피고인 4 금융계좌거래내역 확인), 피고인 3 농협계좌거래내역, 피고인 4 국민은행 거래내역, 수사보고(피고인 1 명함 4장 기록 편철), 수사보고(당원 명부 추정 우편물 발송 사실 확인), 발송인 공소외 4 회사 우편물 검색 화면, 피고인 1과 공소외 3, 54와의 카카오톡 대화 내용, 발송인 피고인 1 우편물 검색 화면, 수사보고(피고인 3의 개인정보 보관자 지위 등 판단자료 편철), 피고인 3 메일자료(명함 시안, 전화 홍보 결과보고서), 수사보고(피의자 피고인 1의 개인정보 타인 제공 사실 확인), 2012. 2. 22. 공소외 2(보낸 사람) ‘울주군 명단 1차 정리’ 메일자료, 2012. 2. 3. 피고인 2(보낸 사람) ‘울산 울주군’ 메일자료, 2012. 2. 21. 피고인 2(보낸 사람) ‘부산시 동래구’ 메일자료, 2012. 3. 20. 피고인 1(보낸 사람) ‘비례대표 연락처 외 2건’ 메일자료, SK커뮤니케이션 회신 공문, 피고인 1과 공소외 44의 카톡 대화 내용(2012. 2. 18.), 공소외 44 입당원서 관련 자료, 2012. 2. 18. 피고인 1(보낸 사람) ‘○○○당 공천심사위원회 연락처’ 메일 자료, 2012. 5. 12. 공소외 44(보낸 사람) ‘○○○당 청주흥덕을 선거인단명부’ 메일 자료, 공소외 44 후보 보도자료, 공소외 44의 2007고합243호 공직선거법위반 판결문, 공소외 55 관련 자료, 수사보고(이메일 가입자 인적사항 등 확인), 다음커뮤니케이션 회신 자료, 사건조회 자료, ○○○당 인턴사원 모집공고 관련 청년국 부서자 메일 추정 관련 자료, 수사보고(공소외 4 회사 사업자등록증명원 등 기록 편철), 통신판매업신고증, 공소외 4 회사 사업자등록증명원, 수사보고{공소외 2 이메일상 개인정보(울주군 당원 명부) 제공사실 확인}, 다음커뮤니케이션 회신 공문, 공소외 2 이메일 발, 수신 목록 및 첨부 파일, 수사보고(중간수사결과 및 추가 압수수색 필요성 보고), 수사보고(○○○당 제19대 지역구 국회의원 후보 선출 관련 자료 등 수집 편철), ○○○당 당규 ‘공직후보자추천위원회규정’, 2012. 1. 17. ○○○당 의원총회 브리핑자료, 2012. 1. 31. ○○○당 대변인실 브리핑자료, 2012. 2. 27. ○○○당 공천위원회 1차 공직후보자 추천 및 전략지역선정 보도자료, 2012. 3. 5. ○○○당 대변인실 브리핑자료, ○○○당 국민참여경선 문답풀이 자료, 2012. 3. 5. ○○○당 공천위원회 2차 공직후보자 추천 및 경선지역 선정 브리핑 자료, 수사보고(피의자 피고인 2 판결문 수집 보고), 청주지법 2010고단1297호 판결문, 수사보고(○○○당 전국 선거구별 당원 명부 발견), ○○○당 242개 선거구별 당원명단 현황, CD(엑세스파일, 암호설정), 수사보고(카카오톡 및 문자메시지 등 파일CD 저장 편철), 피의자 피고인 1 휴대전화 2대에서 복구한 카톡대화 등 파일저장 CD, 수사보고(피고인 3의 발신통화내역 확인), 수사보고, 주식회사 SMS△△△△△ 웹사이트 캡쳐 사진, 회사소개서, 이용약관, 개인정보처리취급방침, 의견서, 수사보고(피의자 피고인 1 당원 명부 제공대가 금품 수령 추가 사실 발견), 피의자 피고인 1과 공소외 2간의 카톡 대화내용, 피의자 피고인 1 국민은행 계좌거래내역, 수사보고(○○○당 공천 확정자 명단 자료 등 편철), ○○○당 공천확정자 명단, 각 지역구, 당별 공천후보자 명단, 각 지역별 예비후보자 선거운동기구 설치 내역 자료, 수사보고(피고인 1 청탁 개입 정황 관련 문자메시지 내역 편철), 문자메시지 내역, 수사보고(피고인 1 국민은행 계좌 중 당원 명부 제공대가 추정 의심 거래내역 확인), 피고인 1 국민은행계좌, 수사관 직접 작성 메모지, 수사보고(피의자 피고인 1 소개 및 ○○○당 시도당 당직자 공소외 48, 36 소개 관련 수첩 사본 편철 등), CD(각 후보자별 선거 문자 전송 내역), 매출장, 월말결산, 수사보고(○○○당 동래구 당원 명부 외부업체 공소외 8 회사에 제공한 사실 확인), 피고인 1과 피고인 2간의 카카오톡 대화, 피고인 2와 피고인 6의 카카오톡 대화, 피고인 2의 네이트 메일 화면 캡쳐 사진, ○○○당 부산시 동래구 당원 명부, 수사보고(○○○당 예비후보자 공천후보자 선정 직전 사전선거운동 혐의점 발견 및 공소외 8 회사 압수수색 필요성 보고), 2012. 제19대 국회의원 선거용 음성홍보시스템 무료제공제안서, 공소외 4 회사 견적서, 공소외 4 회사에서 작성한 인터넷전화기 문자발송방법 안내서, 공소외 4 회사 주주명부, 공소외 8 회사 발송 공문, 공소외 8 회사를 통한 인터넷전화기의 후보자 문자 발송 내역, 공소외 44 계좌번호 등 기재 메모지, 판결문 사본(피고인 6), 수사보고(피고인 2 휴대폰 메시지상 명부 관련 내용 정리), 피고인 2 휴대폰메시지 내용, 피고인 1과 공소외 3의 카카오톡 대화내용, 피고인 1과 공소외 2의 카카오톡 대화내용, 피고인 1과 피고인 2의 카카오톡 대화내용, 피고인 1과 피고인 3의 카카오톡 대화 내용, 수사보고(전체 당원 명부 중 동래구 명부와 피고인 2가 피고인 6에게 보낸 동래구 명부의 일치 여부 확인), 피고인 1이 피고인 2에게 보낸 ○○○당 전체 당원 명부 중 동래구 명부, 수사보고(피고인 2 관리 자금세탁 차명계좌 발견), 수사보고(공소외 8 회사 등기부등본 첨부 보고), 수사보고(공소외 8 회사에 ○○○당 지역별 당원 명부 추가 제공가능성 판단), 공소외 8 회사와 ○○○당 부산 동래 전일수 예비후보자의 인터넷전화서비스 이용신청서, 공소외 8 회사와 ○○○당 부산 영도 공소외 56 예비후보자의 인터넷전화서비스 이용신청서, 공소외 4 회사를 통한 공소외 8 회사와 각 후보자간 계약 현황, 공소외 4 회사 국민은행 계좌거래내역, 수사보고(피고인 6 소유 애플노트북 외 2건 긴급압수수색영장 청구 필요성 보고), 우리은행 통장 내역서, 농협 입출금거래내역, 기업은행 통장내역서, 농협 입출금거래내역, 기업은행 통장내역서, 수사보고(각 당별 예비후보자 지역 경선 또는 전략 공천 직전지지 호소 문자 발송 내역 확인), 수사보고(공소외 7이 ‘태양인’에게 보낸 이메일 확인), 피고인 1과 공소외 7의 카카오톡 대화내용, 공소외 7이 보낸 이메일 및 첨부 파일 창원을 명부, ○○○당 전체 당원 명부 중 창원을 지역 명부, 수사보고(금융계좌추적 및 휴대전화 압수수색의 필요성), 수사보고(피고인 2와 공소외 1의 통화녹음파일 녹취), 녹취록 작성 보고, 각 녹취록, 수사보고(공소외 8 회사 인터넷전화기 이용 각 후보자별 선거 문자 발송 내역 등 확인), 공소외 8 회사 인터넷전화기 이용 ○○○당 각 후보자별 문자 발송 내역, ○○○당 지역별 경선 실시 지역 및 후보자 명단, 수사보고(피고인 1이 공소외 46에게 서초을 명단 보낸 사실 확인), 피고인 1과 공소외 46의 카카오톡 대화내용, 피고인 1이 공소외 46에게 보낸 이메일과 첨부 파일, ○○○당 전체 당원 명부 중 서초을 지역 명부, 수사보고(공소외 7이 ▽▽▽▽당 경남도당 정책실장인 공소외 57에게 당원 명부 유출한 사실 확인), 피고인 1과 공소외 7의 카카오톡 대화내용, 공소외 7이 보낸 이메일 및 첨부 파일 창원을, ○○○당 전체 당원 명부 중 창원을 지역 명부, (인터넷 주소 3 생략)에 대한 가입자조회 공문, ▽▽▽▽당 경남도당 홈페이지내 출력물, 이메일 및 첨부파일 사본, 통장 사본, 수사보고(피고인 2가 공소외 7에게 ○○○당 선거구별 7개 지역 당원 명부 제공 과정 보고), 수사보고(피의자 공소외 7의 대구 수성을 등 7개 지역 당원 명부 수령 정황 자료 및 공직선거법위반 정황 자료 수집 편철), Hope JIN-JU 2012 Project 문서, 2012총선 대비 경남/울산 기초조사표, 공천 및 경선 대비 전략, 여론조사일정, 2012. 1. 25. 공소외 9 후보와 공소외 7 간의 계약서, 창원을 당원 명부, 진주갑 지역 여론조사, 공소외 9 후보소개서, 수원지검 디지털포렌식 회신CD, 당원 명부, ○○○당 공천위원회 2차 공직후보자 추천 및 경선지역 선정, 여론조사보고서, 공소외 6의 컴퓨터를 분석하여 나온 자료, 거래내역, 수사보고(참고인 공소외 48 제출 자료 첨부), 수사보고(피고인 6의 개인정보처리자 지위 판단), 수사보고(피의자 피고인 1의 비밀유지의무 등 확인 보고), 수사보고(피고인 6의 개인정보관리책임자 지위 확인), 이메일, 고소장 사본, 명함, 공소장 사본 첨부, 사실조회(전화가입자 확인의뢰), 회신, 가족관계등록부(제적등본 포함) 등 송부의뢰, 수사보고(가족관계증명서 제출보고), 수사보고{공소외 58 금융회사그룹 기업프로필 등 편철보고}, 공소외 27 계좌거래내역 일부 첨부, 공소외 27 수사 중인 사건 기록 의견서 첨부, 수용자 접견현황 첨부 등, 접견 현황 내역, 각 녹취록, 계좌영장 집행 및 계좌 거래내역 분석, 공소외 26, 27, 피고인 1의 각 계좌 거래내역, 수사보고(핸드폰 가입 내역 확인보고), 통신사 회신자료, 예금거래실적 증명서, 수사보고(수표입출금 내역 등 계좌영장 집행), 국민은행 출금전표 사본, 우리은행 입금전표 사본, 우리은행 입금 국민은행 발행 수표 사본, 피고인 1, 공소외 29 관계 분석, 법인등기부등본, 신용평가보고서, 피고인 1, 공소외 30 관계 및 공소외 30 계좌 분석, 공소외 30 계좌 거래내역, 피의자 공소외 26과 피고인 1의 상호간 휴대전화 통화내역, 통신자료 회신, 수사보고{공소외 58 금융회사그룹 사업장 이전 보고}, 현장조사보고서, 수사보고(공소외 27 계좌 영장집행 등), 공소외 27 계좌 거래내역, 근무사실확인의뢰, 수사보고(피고인 1 임면사항 확인보고), 사실확인의뢰, 근무사실확인의뢰 회신, 수사보고(공소외 29 휴대전화 분석결과 첨부), 수사보고(공소외 26 휴대전화 분석결과 첨부), 공소외 30 신한은행 계좌거래내역, 피고인 1 국민은행계좌(공소외 30과 동일거래 인물) 거래내역, 수사보고(공소외 26 사무실 컴퓨터 파일 첨부), 메모짱 연락처 출력물, 수사보고(핸드폰 가입자 내역 확인), 제13차 방송통신위원회 회의록(비공개), 제14차 방송통신위원회 회의록(비공개), 입출금내역, 수사보고(피고인 1 경력사항 첨부), 수사보고(공소외 47, 26 간의 대화음성파일CD첨부), 수사보고(피고인 1 소지 차명 휴대전화 문자메시지 복구 내역), 수원지법 2012고합708 판결 , 수원지방법원 2012고합341호 피고인 공소외 26에 대한 판결문, 공소외 47 이메일 수신 사본 및 출입국조회, 수원지방법원 2012고합599호 피고인 공소외 7에 대한 판결문

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 71 subparag. 5 and 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the act of disclosing or providing personal information known to the public in the course of performing his/her duties to another person without authority), Articles 71 subparag. 6 and 59 subparag. 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the act of divulging another person’s personal information without legitimate authority) as a whole; Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the act of receiving money and valuables for soliciting public officials) and Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the act of receiving money and valuables

B. Defendant 2: Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who divulges personal information known to him/her in the course of performing his/her duties, provides personal information to another person without authority or provides personal information for an illegal purpose), Article 72 subparag. 2 and Article 59 subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who acquires personal information by illegal means or means), Articles 71 subparag. 3 and 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, comprehensively, Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 11(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act (a person who aided and aided a public official to receive money or goods for solicitation)

(c) Defendant 3: Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who divulges personal information known to him/her in the course of performing his/her duties or provides such information to another person without authority), Article 71 subparag. 6 and Article 59 subparag. 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who divulges personal information without legitimate authority)

D. Defendant 4: Article 71 Subparag. 5 and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who divulges personal information known to him/her in the course of performing his/her duties or provides personal information for use by another person without authority, or provides personal information for profit or for an illegal purpose), Article 72 Subparag. 2 and Article 59 Subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who acquires personal information by an unlawful means or method), Article 71 Subparag. 3 and Article 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who manages

(e) Defendant 5: Article 71 Subparag. 5 and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who divulges personal information known to him/her in the course of performing his/her duties or provides such information to another person without authority), Article 71 Subparag. 3 and Article 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who manages

(f) Defendant 6: Article 72 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 59 Subparag. 1 of the same Act (the fact that personal information has been received for profit or for any other wrongful purpose); Article 71 Subparag. 5 and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the same Act of the Protection of Personal Information Act (the fact that a person divulges personal information known to him/her in the course of conducting his/her duties or is provided with personal information for profit or for any other wrongful purpose); Article 71 Subparag.

1. Commercial competition;

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 3: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Code [each violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and each violation of the Personal Information Protection Act due to the divulgence of personal information to Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, and 3 by delivering the list of party members he/she becomes aware of in the course of performing his/her duties to Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, and 3, each of which constitutes a violation of each of the Personal Information Protection Act due to the divulgence of personal information by delivering the list of party members he/she becomes aware of in the course of performing duties to Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, and 3]

B. Defendant 2 and Defendant 4: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act [a person who knowingly received a list of party members and provided personal information to another person without authority while disclosing personal information that he/she learned in the course of performing his/her duties, or who knowingly received it from Defendant 1 for profit or unjust purposes; a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act due to the acquisition of personal information by any unlawful means or means after receiving a list of party members from Defendant 1; a person who knowingly received a list of party members from Defendant 1 with heavy punishment to divulge personal information that he/she learned in the course of performing his/her duties or provided it to another person without authority]

(c) Defendant 6: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [a person who knowingly acquired personal information by an unlawful means or method and knowingly divulges personal information acquired for profit or for an unlawful purpose, or provides another person with personal information without authority despite being aware of the fact that he/she knew of the fact that he/she knew of the fact that he/she knew of the fact that he/she received such personal information, and committed a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act due to the provision of such personal information for profit or an unjust purpose, and a punishment prescribed in the Act on the Violation of the Personal Information Protection due to the provision of personal information

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1, 2, and 6 shall be punished by imprisonment, and each fine shall be imposed on Defendant 3, 4, and 5.

1. Mitigation and mitigation (as to the defendant 2)

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1)3 of the Attorney-at-Law Act)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (a)

B. Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Personal Information Protection Act due to the delivery of the list of party members of the most severe punishment, crime and crime committed to Nonindicted 7];

(c) Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Protection of Personal Information due to the transfer of the list of party members known to Defendant 2)

(d) Defendant 4: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Personal Information Protection Act due to the delivery of the list of party members most severe than punishment, crime quality, and crime committed to Nonindicted 7];

(e) Defendant 5: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [a concurrent offender for the crime of violating the Personal Information Protection Act due to the delivery of the list of party members with more serious criminal standing to Nonindicted 7];

(f) Defendant 6: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (as a result of providing a list of party members to Nonindicted 39 who are the largest offender, the penalty against the crime of violation of the Personal Information Protection Act as a result of providing a list of party members)

1. Detention in a workhouse (defendants 3, 4, and 5);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (as to the defendant 2, 6)

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Confiscation (as to the defendant 2, 4)

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Collection (as to the defendant 1);

Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 357 (3) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment (as against the defendant 3, 4, or 5);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act against Defendant 1 and 2

A. Whether the list of party members per ○○○○ Party constitutes “personal information known to him/her on duty”

(1) Defendants’ assertion

Although Defendant 2 received a list of party members from Defendant 1, Defendant 2 did not constitute “personal information acquired in the course of performing duties” under Article 59(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act, it is merely a personal information that was acquired ex officio regardless of his/her duties.

(2) Determination

(A) Generally, the term “business” under the Criminal Act refers to the whole of a business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or social status. It is interpreted that, regardless of whether the business or business is its main or incidental, or even if it is a single-time business, it means a case in which the business or business is performed continuously to a certain extent or it is conducted in a close relationship with the inherent performance of its original duties and duties continuously conducted in an occupation or social status. According to the Personal Information Protection Act, the term “personal information manager” means a public institution, corporation, organization, individual, etc. that processes personal information directly or through another person to operate personal information files for the purpose of his/her business (Article 2 subparag. 5); and the personal information manager shall not divulge personal information acquired in the course of performing his/her duties or provide such information to another person without authority (Article 59 subparag. 2); and the broad interpretation of each of the above provisions should include all related affairs directly or indirectly related to the performance of duties performed by a personal information manager. Furthermore, the legislative purpose of the Personal Information Protection Act is to promote the dignity and value of personal information.

(B) According to each evidence of the judgment, when Defendant 2, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4, whose main purpose is to dispatch text messages, concluded a contract for the dispatch of text messages between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, Defendant 2 agreed to distribute profits according to the number of times of sending text messages, and concluded a contract with the preliminary candidates for National Assembly members who need it for the purpose of using it for business activities against the preliminary candidates for National Assembly members who are in front of the 19th election for National Assembly members. In light of the process of acquiring the above list of party members, inasmuch as the acquisition of the above list of party members by Defendant 2 is closely related to the business performed by Defendant 2 as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4, it constitutes personal information acquired in the course of performing duties.

B. Whether the forwarding of the party members list to Defendant 2 constitutes “disclosure” or “providing” of personal information

(1) Defendants’ assertion

Defendant 1 sent the list of party members to Defendant 2 by e-mail. However, it is merely limited to Defendant 1’s temporary custody of Defendant 1 on the ground that it would be helpful for Defendant 2’s project in the future. It does not constitute “disclosure” or “providing” as provided by the Personal Information Protection Act.

(2) Determination

(4) In light of the above circumstances acknowledged by evidence, the defendants provided the above list of party members to the ○○○○○○○○○ Party Members by presenting text messages to Defendant 2 for the purpose of election campaign by using the status of party members on duty, and consistently stated that if a contract is concluded, it would have been concluded by oral means to receive settlement of profits in accordance with the number of times of sending text messages. ② The defendant 1 provided the list to Defendant 2 on January 1 through 2, 2012, which is clearly necessary to keep the list of party members on the 19th election day, and then, the list of party members of the ○○○ Party by providing it to the ○○○ Party Members on behalf of the ○○○○ Party Members, which is located in the 19th election day, is likely to increase the demand for delivery of text messages to the ○○ Party Members on the 2nd election day, even if there is no need to keep the list of party members on the 2nd election day.

C. Whether the act of Defendant 2 sent to Nonindicted 7 and Defendant 6 a list of party members constitutes disclosure or provision of personal information

(1) Defendant 2’s assertion

If the Defendant acquired a list of party members who are personal information from Defendant 1 by unlawful means or method, the said list cannot be deemed as “personal information that became aware of in the course of performing duties” as prescribed by Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, and even if it was sent to Nonindicted 7 and Defendant 6, it does not constitute “disclosure” or “providing” of personal information as prescribed by Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

(2) Determination

Article 72 Subparag. 2 and Article 59 Subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act prohibit “the act of acquiring personal information by fraud or other improper means or means,” and Articles 71 Subparag. 5 and 59 Subparag. 2 of the same Act prohibit “the act of disclosing or providing personal information to another person without authority,” and each of the above provisions separately prohibit and punish “the act of collecting personal information and disclosing or using personal information without authority,” and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the same Act does not exclude the application of Article 59 Subparag. 1 of the same Act. Thus, if “personal information acquired on duty” under Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the same Act is without reason to interpret “the act of acquiring personal information by reproduction and dissemination of personal information in itself,” which constitutes “the act of providing personal information to a party member without authority,” which constitutes “the act of divulging personal information acquired on duty” under Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the same Act and constitutes “the act of providing personal information to a party member without authority and without authority,” and thus, constitutes an unlawful act of disclosure or provision of personal information to a defendant 9.

2. As to the part on the receipt of property in breach of trust against Defendant 1 and the receipt of property in breach of trust against Defendant 2

A. Defendants’ assertion

Defendant 2 delivered KRW 2 million to Defendant 1 on February 1, 2012 and March 12, 2012. However, Defendant 1 provided consultation on the planning and public relations of △△△△△△△, and introduced candidates or companies wishing to send text messages to Defendant 2, Defendant 2 entered into a partnership agreement with the contents that Defendant 2 would distribute profits from sending text messages to Defendant 1. Defendant 1 demanded money as activity expenses pursuant to the above agreement. As Defendant 2 demanded money as a kind of advance payment, Defendant 2 provided money to Defendant 1 under the name of advance payment, and there was no relationship with the provision of the party members list, and Defendants did not receive and exchange illegal solicitation.

(b) the existence of an illegal solicitation;

(1) Relevant legal principles

The illegal solicitation under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient that it goes against social rules or the principle of trust and good faith. In determining it, the contents of solicitation and the amount of related consideration, form, and integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, should be comprehensively considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10290, Aug. 18, 201, etc.).

(2) According to the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, namely, ① the list of party members offered by Defendant 1 is likely to infringe on an individual’s right to privacy because specific personal information, such as the name, address, telephone number, etc. of individuals admitted to ○○○○○○○○ Party, is written in detail, and is also likely to be abused for crimes using such information. In particular, the issue of whether a specific political party is admitted is an important information directly related to a political fundamental right, and thus, it is personal information that may cause serious infringement of fundamental rights if disclosed to the general public. ② From around 20 years, Defendant 1 worked as an employee of ○○○○ Party for ○○○○ Party, and from around August 201, Defendant 200, Defendant 1 worked as the Director General of ○○○ Party and worked as ○○○ Party 2’s employee’s personal information against the party’s will and endeavor not to divulge it to a third party, thereby protecting the rights of party members of the ○○ Party 2’s request to provide a candidate’s candidate’s information.

(c) Whether the relationship is deemed to be a quid pro quo relationship between the receipt of four million won and the offer of a list of party members; and

(5) On the other hand, the Defendant 2’s business of delivering text messages to ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party’s ○○○○○○ Party’s ○○○○ Party’s ○○○○ Party’s business activities, including the following facts: (a) Nonindicted Company 4 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Company 4 and made it difficult for Nonindicted Company 2 to send text messages to ○○○○ Party’s ○○ Party’s ○○ Party’s ○○ Party’s ○○ Party’s ○ Party’s ○ Party’s ○ Party’s ○ Party’s ○ Party’s ○ Party’s ○ Party 2 to provide the Defendant’s ○ Party’s 0 Party 2’s ○ Party 2’s ○ Party 2’s ○ Party 2’s ○ Party’s ○ Party’s ○ Party’s 0 Party 2’s ○ Party 2’s ○ Party 2’s ○ Party 2’s ○ Party.

3. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant 1

A. Defendant’s assertion

Although there is a fact that the Defendant received KRW 20,100,00 from Nonindicted 26, it is only a personal monetary transaction with Nonindicted 26, and there is no fact that Nonindicted 26 or Nonindicted 27 received a solicitation related to the renewed broadcast license.

B. Relevant legal principles

In order to establish the crime of mediation and taking over as provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "crime of mediation and taking over"), an act of receiving money, goods, or other benefits under the pretext of arranging or mediating between the person who requested mediation and the public official who is eligible to become the other party to such mediation shall be conducted, and the crime of mediation and taking over shall also be constituted by participating in such act through public offering or taking part in the act of execution with the intention of joint processing (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do203, Aug. 25, 2006, etc.).

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to each evidence of the judgment, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On December 31, 2008, Nonindicted 27 entered into a contract with Nonindicted 41, a major shareholder of ○○ Broadcasting, to acquire stocks of ○○○ Broadcasting in KRW 8 billion, and paid KRW 6 billion out of the acquisition price.

(2) At the time, △△△ Broadcasting shares were the object of pledge established for securing the obligation to pay 25 billion won to Nonindicted 59 Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted 59 Company”). Nonindicted 27 was the object of pledge established for securing the obligation to pay 25 billion won to Nonindicted 59 Company. Under the plan to obtain a PF loan from Nonindicted 26 to pay the above obligation to Nonindicted 59 Company by subrogation, Nonindicted 62 Securities Company and the person in charge of Nonindicted 63 Securities Company were introduced from Nonindicted 26 to proceed with the PF

(3) However, on January 30, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 59 applied for a public auction procedure for the said shares on the basis of the above pledge. Nonindicted Co. 62 securities company and Nonindicted 63 securities company suspended the progress of the PF loan procedure, and Nonindicted Co. 27 again continued the PF loan procedure when the said shares were awarded a successful bid in the above public auction procedure.

(4) At that time, Nonindicted 27 tried to continuously promote a PF loan through Nonindicted 62 securities companies, etc. in order to pay the intermediate payment and the balance after receiving a successful bid of KRW 1.5 billion for the said stocks in the above public sale procedure. However, Nonindicted 27 was recommended by Nonindicted 60, a joint investor, to suspend the progress of the PF loan through Nonindicted 62 securities companies, along with the funding agreement from Nonindicted 60, a joint investor. Nonindicted 26 also suspended involvement in the PF loan through Nonindicted 62 securities companies, etc.

(5) However, Nonindicted 60 did not comply with the financial assistance agreement, and Nonindicted 27 came to know that, on March 13, 2009, the payment date of the intermediate payment of KRW 4.5 billion was delayed until March 5, 2009, Nonindicted 4.5 billion was borrowed from a third party and the intermediate payment was paid between March 13, 2009 and March 16, 2009, and that, on March 3, 2009, the Korea Communications Commission might be denied the renewed license of △△△△ Broadcasting from the Korea Communications Commission in the remaining condition of the remainder nine billion won.

(6) The Korea Communications Commission held the 13th meeting on March 27, 2009 with respect to the renewed license of △△△ Broadcasting, and the 14th meeting on March 30, 2009, respectively, and granted conditional permission including the following conditions of permission, and accordingly, the decision to renew the license was postponed at least six months after the decision to renew the license was made.

4. By September 30, 2009, the following shall be implemented and shall be submitted to the Korea Communications Commission by the end of each month:

- Cancellation of payment guarantee provided to persons with special interests

- The security dismissal for shares offered as security for financial rights;

5. A management improvement plan shall be implemented in the statement of opinion presented in a hearing, such as capital increase and merger.

(7) On April 7, 2009, Nonindicted 27 remitted KRW 80 million to Nonindicted 26’s account. Nonindicted 26 withdrawn KRW 19.9 million from his own account on the same day, and Nonindicted 26 remitted KRW 5 million to Nonindicted 29’s representative director of Nonindicted 28 Co. 29, which the Defendant was a director, and Nonindicted 26 remitted KRW 5.1 million to the Defendant’s or Nonindicted 30.

(8) In addition, on April 30, 2009, Nonindicted 27 withdrawn KRW 150 million from his own account as a check and delivered a check of KRW 20 million at face value to Nonindicted 26. After that, Nonindicted 26 remitted KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s account on May 4, 2009 and KRW 5 million to Nonindicted 30, respectively.

D. As to KRW 10 million received by Nonindicted 26 and KRW 20,100,00 received by the Defendant among them

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, ① Nonindicted 27 was in the state of 10 billion won or more for Nonindicted 2’s receipt of loan from Nonindicted 60 million won, and Nonindicted 2 was unable to collect the loan if the permission was not renewed by the Korea Communications Commission, and ② Nonindicted 27 was in the state of 00 million won or more for Nonindicted 200 million won, and Nonindicted 26 was in the name of 60 million won or more for the Defendant’s loan to Nonindicted 60 million won, and Nonindicted 26 was in the name of 60 million won or more for the Defendant’s loan to Nonindicted 60 million won, and Nonindicted 27 was still in the position of 60 million won or more for the Defendant’s loan to Nonindicted 60 million won or more for the Defendant’s loan to Nonindicted 260 million won or more for the Defendant’s loan to Nonindicted 60 million won or more for the Defendant’s loan to Nonindicted 260 million won or more.

E. Whether a public contest relationship is recognized

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment, Nonindicted 26 received the above KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 27 who requested the mediation under cooperation with the Defendant and the other party to the mediation, under the pretext of arranging between the public officials belonging to the Cheongdae Office and the Korea Communications Commission, and then delivered KRW 20,100,000 to the Defendant along with a solicitation to the same effect. As such, it can be recognized that the Defendant received money and valuables in collusion with Nonindicted 26 regarding the mediation of matters belonging to the duties of public officials

① 공소외 27은 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 “공소외 26이 ‘♤♤♤당 ◁◁국장인 피고인(실제로는 ▷▷팀장)의 동기가 청와대 비서관으로 2명이나 있는데 마침 방송통신위원회 담당으로 있어 피고인의 부탁을 거절할 수 없으니 피고인을 통해 부탁하면 재허가가 날 수 있다’고 하였다”라고 진술하고 있는데, 진술의 일관성 및 구체성에 비추어 위 진술내용은 신빙성이 높다.

② 피고인은 당시 ♤♤♤당 ▷▷팀장으로서, 그의 지인이 청와대에 근무하고 있었고, 공소외 26의 부탁에 따라 구속된 공소외 40의 수감실을 변경해 주는 등 공소외 26의 청탁을 해결해 준 적이 있는데, 이러한 사실도 위 진술의 신빙성을 뒷받침하고 있다.

③ Nonindicted 26 stated that “Nonindicted 27 and Defendant 27 met at the same time on three occasions,” and Nonindicted 27 stated in this court that “Nonindicted 27 made a statement that “the Defendant was able to receive the money in front,” and Nonindicted 27 held the name of the Defendant and the name of Nonindicted 27, respectively. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 27 held the name of the Defendant and the name of Nonindicted 27, the Defendant appears to have received money from Nonindicted 27 and 27, so Nonindicted 26 appears to have also acted as intermediaryed between Nonindicted 27 and the Defendant.

④ At the time, Nonindicted 26’s brokerage act was not limited to the introduction of Nonindicted 27 to the client Nonindicted 27 to the Defendant, but it can be deemed that Nonindicted 26 attempted to resolve the issue of re-permission of the broadcast, which was requested by Nonindicted 27 through the Defendant.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, it is recognized that the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 26, received money and valuables in order to arrange matters falling under the duties of public officials ( regardless of whether the name of KRW 100 million received from Nonindicted 27, which was received from Nonindicted 26, was in cooperation with the Defendant, to arrange for the renewal of △△△ Broadcasting, and whether the nature of the PF loan fee is included together, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 20,100,000,000

4. As to the part concerning aiding and abetting Defendant 2 in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

A. Defendant’s assertion

Although the defendant introduced the non-indicted 1 to the defendant 1, it is nothing more than the defendant's role of delivering the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 1 with the helper in his work upon the defendant's request, there is no personal benefit, and there is no person who has provided money or goods differently from the person who provided money or goods for the purpose of solicitation to the public official, and in light of the purport of the Attorney-at-Law Act which does not punish the person who provided money or goods to the non-indicted 1, the money or goods provider, as a crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, so the defendant's act cannot

B. Determination

According to the evidence of the court below, if the defendant was found to have been in a position that it was difficult to investigate the crime against the non-indicted 26 at the time upon request of the non-indicted 1 for the introduction to the prosecutor's office, and the defendant 1 was ordered to request the non-indicted 1. The defendant's delivery of money and valuables to the non-indicted 1 in return for solicitation by the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 1. The defendant was transferred money and valuables to the non-indicted 1, and again remitted money to the non-indicted 1 again from the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 1. The defendant's act of not providing assistance to the non-indicted 1's own attorney-at-law's office to the non-indicted 1 because it was hard to find that the defendant's act of not providing assistance to the non-indicted 1's prosecutor's office, but it was hard to find that there was a possibility that the defendant's act of offering of money and valuables to the non-indicted 1's own trust or other evidence.

5. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 2’s arguments are without merit.

1. The crime of this case was committed in collusion with Defendant 1 and 3 on the list of 2.2 million party members per ○○○○○○ party, which is personal information, and the list was delivered to Defendant 2, etc., and Defendant 1 received a total of KRW 4 million from Defendant 2, along with such unlawful solicitation as requesting the leakage of the list of party members per ○○○○○ party members as above. In collusion with Nonindicted 26 on the pretext of solicitation to public officials of the Cheong○○ branch and the Korea Communications Commission in connection with the renewed broadcasting, 20.1 million won was received from Defendant 2, 4, and 5 on the pretext of solicitation to public officials of the Cheong○○ branch and the Korea Communications Commission. Defendant 2, 4, and 5 provided part of the list of party members per ○○○ party members who were provided by Defendant 1 to Defendant 6, and Defendant 2 provided part of the list to Defendant 1 on the list of party members per ○○ party members by providing it to Defendant 30 million won.

2. Unfavorable elements of sentencing;

As to the Defendants’ violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, violation of the said Act, violation of the said Act, violation of trust against the Defendants, and violation of trust. Since the list of party members is the internal data of a political party stating personal information, such as the names, resident registration numbers, addresses, mobile phone numbers, etc. of party members, it is enough to protect privacy by itself, and if disclosed, it is likely to be used for a convenient appeal for certain voters within the political party activities related to the election. As such, there is a high need to protect the above information to prevent this. Article 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that the information on the party members and withdrawals of the political party constitutes sensitive information that is likely to seriously infringe upon the privacy of the information subjects, and imposes restrictions on the processing of the said information to the information subjects. Considering the fact that ○○○○○○○ party members, who were the data subjects of information due to the instant crime, violated their right to self-determination on the information of the above ○○ party members, who were aware of their political interests and interests of the political party members.

In addition, with respect to Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the crime of aiding and abetting Defendant 2’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the quality of the crime is inferior, such as causing the general public’s incompetence on the propriety and fairness of the performance of official duties, and the amount of the consideration given and received by Defendant 1 is not a considerable amount of 201 million won, and Defendant 2 committed each of the above crimes even during the grace period after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the violation of the Petroleum and

3. Preferential factors for sentencing;

However, Defendant 3 is the primary offender, Defendant 1, and Defendant 4 did not have any other penalty force than the previous offense, Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6 were all led to the confession of all their crimes, Defendant 3 did not directly participate in the divulgence of the party members list at the request of Defendant 1, Defendant 3 did not directly participate in the divulgence of the party members list, Defendant 4, and 5 appears to have not obtained any direct benefit from the divulgence of the party members list, Defendant 4 and 5 were actively involved in some crimes according to the direction of Defendant 2, who is the representative director, and did not acquire personal benefit. Defendant 2 disclosed only some local constituency lists among the party members list and did not use them for any other purpose than the business of sending text messages, and Defendant 2 did not appear to have a significant impact on the election of candidates for ○○○○○○ National Assembly members due to the Defendants’ crimes, and Defendant 1 did not recognize that the request for renewal of the license was not affected, and Defendant 2 did not have any direct benefit from the violation of the Attorney-at Law.

4. In addition to the above favorable sentencing factors and unfavorable sentencing factors, each of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, the age, character and conduct of the Defendants, and family environment, shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)