All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant theft crime, the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

The punishment of the court below (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act among the facts charged in the instant case on a different premise is unlawful, where information provided by a mobile communications agency on October 8, 2013 is easily combined with other information to identify a specific individual, and thus, constitutes personal information prescribed in the Personal Information Protection Act.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act defines “personal information pertaining to an individual who lives” as “information by which an individual can be identified through his/her name, resident registration number, image, etc. (including information by which a specific individual cannot be identified but can be identified through simple combination with other information).”

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in light of the fact that the defendant was provided with the information that "K and address in the mobile communication agency without the consent of the data subject while being provided with the mobile phone number from the victim K: K: The defendant is recognized as having been provided with the information that "Seoul is about 8.5% of the total population in our country, and the population of Yangcheon-gu Seoul is 50,000 people around the time when the defendant was provided with the above information (refer to reference materials attached to the defendant's defense counsel on September 15, 2014), etc., it cannot be deemed that the information detected by the defendant contains information that can identify a specific individual, and it is also insufficient to view that it is easily combined with other information to identify the victim.

In fact, the defendant uses his information he acquired.