The judgment below

Among them, the part of conviction against Defendant A and the part of confiscation against Defendant D are reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (1) The mobile phone numbers of customers offered by the Defendant to the owners of sexual traffic establishments do not constitute personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act; (2) The lower court recognized that “the Defendant violated the Personal Information Protection Act and aided and abetting the act of arranging sexual traffic by providing mobile phone numbers, etc. to the owners of sexual traffic establishments 2,807 nationwide from July 2, 2017, and 5,29,999; and (3) although the Defendant was issued three times from his name bad, it is impossible for him to directly enter and depart from the account; and (4) The lower court’s collection of the proceeds of the instant case from the Defendant’s use of the instant mobile phone numbers, etc. is inappropriate as the Defendant’s use of the instant case jointly with DB, thereby making it difficult for him to confirm the account details, and thus, doing so.

B) Two of the two were used exclusively for the operation of the AE site, and the AE site is not subject to confiscation, as it was used only for advertisements of legitimate marina business establishments. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C and D’s sentence (Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, Defendant D’s suspended sentence for 6 months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D In submitting the initial petition of appeal, it stated that an appeal was filed on the ground of “in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing,” but thereafter, it is erroneous in the written opinion of September 2, 2019.