The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant posted the patient's personal information with a misleading knowledge that the next carpeta (O) can access only the urology and medical professionals of L Hospital, the Defendant did not constitute a violation of the Medical Service Act and the Personal Information Protection Act.

B. The sentence of a fine of five million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act, which applies to the defendant as to the violation of the Medical Service Act, provides that a person shall not detect, leak, alter, or destroy personal information stored in an electronic medical record without any justifiable reason. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the urinology and majors of L hospitals such as the defendant, E, and H cannot be seen as being admitted from November 2007 to October 24, 2010 for the purpose of collecting data from the guidance professor’s thesis, after investigating the patient’s medical records and investigating the patient’s 1,028 patient’s hospitalization date, discharge date, ID (adm), nadi (sex name of a patient), E, sage, OO or DNA personal information’s name and personal information’s personal information’s personal information’s personal information’s treatment without any consent; and (2) the act of compiling the patient’s name and personal information’s personal information’s personal information’s treatment without consent.