All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged against the Defendant in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction as to the part concerning B, C, D, and E in relation to the crime committed against the Defendant, and rendered a judgment of acquittal as to the part concerning F, G, H, I, J, and K in the crime sight table as indicated in the lower judgment, and dismissed the prosecution as to the remaining part. On the other hand, the Defendant appealed on the part of conviction on the ground of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing, and on the other hand, the prosecutor appealed on the part of the dismissal of prosecution on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and thus, the part concerning the judgment of innocence which the Defendant and the Prosecutor

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the judgment of conviction and dismissal of prosecution.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Whether or not a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the date of transfer do not constitute “information that can identify an individual” even if combined with other information, even if personal information falls under personal information, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was provided to create materials to be used in “an inter-party conference with the head of the agency concerned who would be held on January 14, 2015,” and thus, it is difficult to deem that there was a “illegal purpose” for the Defendant. However, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on a different premise is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5

B. In light of the progress of the instant trial and the relevant provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act, it is inevitable to specify the facts charged by specifying the items (whether or not the Defendant was transferred and the date of transfer) and the number of personal information received by the Defendant.