2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One of the costs of lawsuit;

A. On February 23, 2012, the Defendant: (a) as a police official, entered the subject of inquiry into “A” and “F” using a police officer’s inquiry device working in the same district without relation to his/her duties while working in the D District Office located in Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, as a police official; and (b) searched and perused A’s personal information.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1) A personal information manager shall process personal information to the extent necessary for the purpose of managing such information, and shall not use such information for any other purpose (Article 3(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act). A personal information manager may collect and use such personal information, if it is inevitable for a public institution to perform his/her duties prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. (Article 15(1) of the same Act). A personal information manager shall not use such personal information beyond the scope of the purpose of collection (Article 18(1) of the same Act). A personal information manager may use such personal information for any purpose other than the purpose of collection (Article 18(2) of the same Act) unless it is likely to unfairly infringe upon a subject of information or a third party’s interest if necessary for investigating a crime and instituting and maintaining a public prosecution (Article 18(1)2 of the same Act). According to the foregoing recognition, the Defendant may recognize as a personal information manager that searches

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant’s search and inspection of his personal information for any purpose other than its original purpose, the Plaintiff, a subject of information, was suffering from mental suffering, the Defendant is obliged to pay such mental suffering to the Plaintiff in money.

3..