1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A regarding Defendant A is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, 1 year of imprisonment, 3 years of probation, probation, 200 hours of probation, 200 hours of confiscation, Defendant H: Imprisonment with prison labor, 1 year of suspended execution, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, community service, 200 hours of probation, etc.) is too unfasible

2. Determination

A. It is favorable for Defendant A to recognize and reflect his mistake, and to not repeat a crime.

However, each of the crimes of this case is deemed to have illegally collected and leaked personal information through hacking, and the second and third damage caused by leaked personal information is serious, and the trust in the safety of information and communications network is significantly damaged and thus social costs are enormous. Therefore, it is necessary to impose corresponding punishment. In addition, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to the same kind of crime, in consideration of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances and result of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions of this case, such as the following circumstances, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed to be unfair, and the prosecutor's above assertion is reasonable

B. Defendant H’s provision of personal information illegally leaked and used it in illegal gambling advertisements, and the crime of fraud of this case was committed in a systematic and planned manner, and the crime was committed in total at KRW 12,360,000, not good, and the victims did not recover from damage up to now.

However, there are more favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant repents his mistake and reflects against himself, that the defendant will not repeat the crime, that the defendant does not participate in the crime of fraud of this case by sharing the role of the telephone inducement policy, that the defendant does not focus on the degree of participation, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than a fine.