When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is not guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Personal Information by Public Institutions around April 21, 2011.

Defendant was not the chairman of the election management committee related to the above apartment representative election, and Nonindicted Party 1 was not a candidate for the same representative election at the time, but was believed to have been provided with managed information on the academic background of Nonindicted Party 1 by ○ University and △△ University, a public institution, and ○ University.

1. On April 8, 2011, the Defendant sent to the school affairs support team of ○○ University, located in Seoul ( Address 5 omitted), at the office of Nonindicted Co. 6, located in Guro-gu, Seoul, to the school affairs support team of ○○ University located in Seoul ( Address 5 omitted), the “case of request for confirmation of fact-finding” in the name of the representative of ○○ University, ○○ University, and on the same day, Nonindicted 3 contacted the Defendant to the effect that “Nonindicted 1 is a candidate related to the above election of her apartment, and the internal branch is a candidate related to the above election of her apartment, and there is no problem in the high seas military administration support team of ○ University, which is located in the name of ○○ University’s school affairs support team of ○○ University, which is located in Seoul ( Address 5 omitted), and received administrative credits from Nonindicted 3 on the 11st day of the same month, but the Defendant could not receive administrative degrees from 1984 through 34.

Accordingly, the Defendant received the above managed information on Nonindicted 1’s academic background from ○ University, a public institution, by fraud or other improper means.

2. On April 8, 2011, the Defendant was provided with a scientific reply with Nonindicted 1 to the effect that “Nonindicted 1 acquired a master’s degree of administrative science in the welfare administration department of △△ University graduate school” in the name of Nonindicted 2, who is in charge of the said administrative graduate school, in the name of Nonindicted 2, who is aware of the fact on the 12th day of the same month, prepared as if he inquired of the school register in relation to the election of the representative candidate at the administrative graduate office of △△ University located in Seoul ( Address 6 omitted) at the same place as the above paragraph (1).”

Accordingly, the Defendant received such managed information as above on the academic background of Nonindicted 1 from △ University, a public institution, by fraud or other improper means.

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 1, 3, and 2

1. The police interrogation protocol regarding Nonindicted 5

1. The case of verification of each scientific inquiry (the name of ○○○, the other party of April 8, 201, in the name of △△ apartment △△ Dong, the other party of △△ Dong-dong, and the name of △△ Dong-dong, △△ apartment △△△ apartment on April 8, 201)

1. Correspondence to academic background inquiry (in the name of the school affairs support team of the ○○ University);

1. Scientific inquiry reply (the name of the head of the administrative graduate school at △ University on April 12, 201);

Article 23(3) of the former Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 10465, Mar. 29, 201) (Determination of each fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Although the Defendant sent ○ University and △△ University a “case of verification of the school fact”, the Defendant asserts that there was no pretending to inquire about the academic background related to the same representative election, or misrepresenting the chairman of the election management or the election management commission.

However, in light of the following facts: “The candidate’s resume was received for the representative of △△ apartment building in this case, and there was a detailed statement that Nonindicted Party 1’s resume, such as the resident registration number, major, degree course, etc., can actually be seen, it is not only presumed that Nonindicted Party 1 was a candidate for the representative election at the time, but also that Nonindicted Party 1 was the candidate for the representative election at the time, and that it can sufficiently be recognized that the defendant was the candidate for the representative election, namely, the status of managing the curriculum submitted by the candidate and verifying the authenticity thereof, and that the defendant was the chairman of the election management commission or the election commission. Therefore, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2. As to the assertion that there is no causation

The Defendant asserted that there was no causal link with the Defendant’s act since each university was replyed according to the custom. However, it does not seem that the Defendant, the representative of the apartment building of this case, was aware of the fact that there was a doubt about the existing curriculum of Nonindicted Party 1, the representative of the other Dong, and that each university was aware of the candidate’s educational background through legitimate means at each university. As such, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. As to the assertion that the act constitutes a justifiable act

Although the Defendant asserts that his act constitutes an act that does not contravene social norms, it cannot be justified for the Defendant to reach this case on the grounds that there is a doubt about the existing resume of another representative, as well as it is difficult to view that it is reasonable in the means and method of such act, and it is difficult to deem that such act was an urgent and inevitable means, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s assertion on this part is a justifiable act.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that “the Defendant was provided with the above managed information as to the academic background of Nonindicted Party 1, which was prepared by the Defendant in the office of Guro-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) around April 21, 201, to Nonindicted Party 4, who was aware of the fact on the same day after sending the case of Nonindicted Party 1’s request for confirmation of the fact of the school inquiry to Nonindicted Party 4 team of the Educational Affairs Management Team of △△ University located in Seoul ( Address 2 omitted), in the name of the Defendant in the name of the president of △△△△△△△, which was prepared as Nonindicted Party 1’s inquiry about the employment of employees in the office of the head of the Gu-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), and was provided with the above Nonindicted Party 1, who was not aware of the fact on the same day. Accordingly, the Defendant was provided with the above managed information on the academic background of the above Nonindicted Party 1 by fraud

Article 23(3) of the former Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 10465, Mar. 29, 201; hereinafter “former Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions”) provides that a person who inspects or was provided with managed information by a public institution by fraud or other improper means shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding seven million won. According to subparagraphs 3 through 5 of Article 2 of the same Act, “management information” means personal information recorded in a magnetic medium, such as magnetic tape, magnetic disc, etc., which is systematically composed of personal information processed by computers, etc., i.e., input, storage, editing, search, deletion, output, and other similar acts.

However, in light of the records, there is no school register with respect to Nonindicted 1, so it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone exists as a collection that systematically consists of the act of inputting, storing, editing, etc. personal information about Nonindicted 1 in △ University, or is recorded in an electronic medium, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime.

2. A portion of the violation of the former Act on the Protection of Personal Information by Public Institutions to △△ University on April 8, 2011, which was false to Nonindicted 2

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that "the defendant testified to the non-indicted 2 to the person in charge of the administrative graduate school of △△ University around April 12, 201, that "the non-indicted 1 is a candidate related to the Dong election of the apartment complex, and the defendant is not the chairman of the election management committee of the apartment complex, so the defendant does not have any problem." In light of the fact that the non-indicted 2 testified to the purport that he does not memory about the telephone contents in this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the above facts, and there is no other evidence to prove this, and thus, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no evidence to prove the crime. However, on April 8, 2011, in relation to this part, the defendant is not guilty in the order of conviction as to the violation of the former Act on the Protection of Personal Information at △△ University.

Judges Jinwon-gu