beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
However, the above judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, No. 1 of the judgment below) (Article 71 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act) provides that “use” or “providing personal information to a third party,” in violation of Article 18(1) of the same Act. The Defendant’s act in Article 1-A of the judgment of the court below is not “use” of another person’s personal information without permission, but “search”. The Personal Information Protection Act does not have any provision punishing a case where a personal information manager searches personal information without consent of the subject. Thus, the above Defendant’s act does not constitute the elements of Articles 71 subparag. 2 and 18(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence of Defendant B’s sentence (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
C1) In fact, the Defendant, by mistake of fact, purchased a share of land from the inheritor, did not leave a lawsuit against the attorney-at-law B, but instead purchased the share of land from the inheritor after the inheritor entered into a contract with the attorney-at-law or filed a lawsuit against the State.
2) The legislative purpose of Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Act is to prevent the harmful effects of a lawsuit brought over by an unqualified person without qualification without serious review of the legal issues and encourage dispute by participating in another person’s legal case.
However, the crime of this case was led by B, who is an attorney-at-law before finding the land as soon as possible, and the lawsuit was proceeded as shown in the attached Table No. 5 of the judgment of the court below, and the defendant is specific.