개인정보보호법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) among the facts charged, and rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution on the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation). The prosecutor appealed only the portion of the acquittal, and the
Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the acquittal part of the judgment below.
2. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (definites and misapprehension of legal principles), the victim’s face, vehicle number, and vehicle can be identified only by taking account of the victim’s statement, the contents of the black image, etc., and this is a personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act. Thus, the Defendant’s act of posting the above video on the D personal information account, etc. without the victim’s consent constitutes personal information leakage.
3. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that: (a) it is recognized that: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to easily combine other information that can be easily acquired in the above images, inasmuch as the Defendant did not possess any other information in the Defendant’s or D, and the Defendant’s person belonging to the above black images, to easily combine it with other information that can be easily acquired in the above images, and stop and re-enters them from the vehicle; and (b) it is difficult to find the Defendant not guilty on the ground that: (a) it is difficult to distinguish the vehicle number or the passenger on the vehicle from the above images; and (b) the vehicle number or the person on the vehicle was not the E’s residence or the workplace; and (c) it was difficult for the Defendant to find out that the person on the
B. The video of this case posted by the Defendant in the above circumstances as decided by the lower court is E through separate work on the video transmitted by the Defendant from a third party in the form of the original Lone Star gram.