정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(개인정보누설등)
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B, NN and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (al misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to all the Defendants) stated that “unfair sentencing” was justifiable on the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance court. However, the prosecutor’s petition of appeal and the reason for appeal on November 2, 2015 are specified only as “misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles,” and the reason for appeal is specified as “misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles,” and thus, the improper assertion of sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal by the prosecutor. Thus, the prosecutor’s summary of the prosecutor’
Defendant
Defendant F (hereinafter only referred to as “E”) of the Defendant F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) and the transfer of personal information recorded in the facts charged against A, B, C, and N (hereinafter referred to as “E”) to the Defendant Company F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) are expressed in the form of “providing the primary facts charged” and “Entrustment of Handling” described in the ancillary facts charged.
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “transfer of personal information of this case”) constitutes a “providing” under Article 24-2(1) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Information and Communications Network Act”).
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding that “the transfer of the personal information of this case constitutes “entrustment with handling” as prescribed in Article 25(1) of the Act, and rendered a judgment not guilty of primary facts charged against Defendant A, B, C, and E, and acquitted Defendant D and F.
B. Defendant A, B, and E (unfair assertion of sentencing) reflects in depth the fact that the above Defendants failed to protect personal information faithfully and suspended marketing by using personal information, and was an employee who inevitably entrusted the handling of personal information in business structure;
The perception of illegality is unclear because Q Q's act of entrusting the handling of personal information is not clear.