The judgment below

The part of the defendant A (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be acquitted. Prosecutors.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The facts charged pertaining to Defendant A’s provision of a mobile phone number of 923 head of a child-care center for the following reasons under the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are not guilty.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the guilty guilty.

A) The mobile phone number of the head of a child care center is a public information or at least a “personal information” under the Personal Information Protection Act.

B) With respect to the provision of the above mobile phone numbers, the consent of the head of the child care center who is the subject of

If it can be seen or it is inevitable for the performance of duties under the Personal Information Protection Act, it is not a crime because information is provided within the scope of the purpose of collection.

C) It is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intentional intent even if the Defendant did so.

D) In the instant case, there are grounds for excluding illegality due to the prior consent or constructive consent of the subject of information, there are grounds for excluding liability due to mistake of law, and the Defendant cannot be punished even in light of the theory of fluence.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In misunderstanding the facts as to Defendant A’s acquittal portion of the reasons and misunderstanding of the legal principles, “information on the distinction of Si/Gun/Gu, type, identification number, address, mail number, representative’s name, president’s name, and general telephone number” was disclosed. However, the Defendant provided the above disclosed information in a form that combines the aforementioned disclosed information with the mobile phone number of the head of the child care center, thereby constituting “information readily recognizable by combining it with other information” under the Personal Information Protection Act.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby providing the Defendant with the aforementioned disclosed information among the charges of this case.