Seoul

Representative Chairman Senior 00

2. A. B headquarters;

Seoul

Representative Head of this **

3. Fixed00

Mayang-si

4. Steel* *

Seoul

5.00

Seoul

6. 100

Sungnam-si

7. Maximum 00

Seoul

8. These **

Mayang-si

9.Transfer 00

Seoul

10. Kim 00

U.S.T.

11. grandchildren 00; and

Incheon

12. Kim*

Seoul

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant]

Seoul

inside the representative director 00

2. Kim & Kim & Kim &

3. Already00

4. Lighting00

5. M& 5.

6. Forest: 00

7. Car 00

Defendant 2 through 7’s address Seoul

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Kang Tae-sung, Attorney Park Jong-sung, and

From June 19, 2012, 5% per annum until February 4, 2015, and 20% per annum from each of the following to the date of full payment to the Plaintiff 00.

2. The plaintiff AF, the AF B head office, the PP, the maximum 00, the 00, this*, the transmission0, the Kim 00, the 00, the 00, the 00, the Kim Kim *** the respective claims against the defendant corporation B and the 00, the rest of the claims against the defendant corporation B and the 00, the *, the 00, the 00, the 00, the 00, and the 00, respectively, are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs AF, AF B head office, 100, 100, 100, 200, 100, 200, 200, 1/100, 300, 1/10 of the part arising between the above plaintiffs and the defendants is borne by the above plaintiffs, ** the remainder of the defendants, 1/10 of the part arising between the plaintiff AF and the defendant B and 100, 1/3 of the part arising between the plaintiff B and the defendant B and 00 are borne by the above plaintiffs, respectively, and * the rest of the defendants *, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, this part is borne by the above plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

From May 31, 2012 to the last service of the complaint of this case with respect to each of the three million won and each of the above amounts.

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

A. Status of the party (1)

The Plaintiff Union is an industrial trade union consisting of journalists engaged in the press industry, and the Plaintiff A Association B Headquarters is a trade union consisting of workers in Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), the headquarters of the A Union, the headquarters of the Plaintiff 100, the lecture* *00, the Plaintiff 00, and the Han 00 are the former members of the headquarters of each Association B, the former members of the headquarters of the A Association B, the largest members of the Plaintiff 00 (PD), the Plaintiff * * the Plaintiff * * the current members of the headquarters of each Association B, the Plaintiff 00, the Plaintiff 10, the representative of the C Association, the Plaintiff Kim * is a teacher and the Plaintiff *.

(2) Defendants

Defendant B worked as a broadcasting company, Defendant Kim & & & & 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, and 00, respectively, as the former and incumbent officers and employees of each of the B, the representative director ( currently retired), 00, 00, 10, as the vice president (former representative director), 20, 20, as the head of each management office, 20, as the head of each public relations campaign office, 30, as the auditor, and 00, as the head of each information system team team.

B. The process of installing Trojan (1) Defendant B’s internal audit conducted around June 201 and the internal information security system was insufficient, and the accident occurred several times due to leakage of internal information. < Amended by Act No. 11234, Dec. 21, 2012>

The implementation plan was formulated to strengthen the company's information security system by ordering the Information Content Office (the chief defendant 00) to select a security product with excellent hacking blocking function and to strengthen the company's information security system. (2) Accordingly, the defendant 00 (information content room) established an implementation plan to strengthen the information security system and reported it to the executive officers and employees, including the defendant 100, etc., and obtained approval. After examining whether to select various hacking blocking programs, the "Trojan" program produced in the non-party D is determined to be seen as a trial using the program, and the "Trojnaut" program produced in the non-party D is determined to be seen as a trial. < Amended by Act No. 112

5. 21. First of all, the IT staff established the above program on computers in the Information Content Office and started the test of the above program.

(3) In addition, on June 12, 2012, Defendant 00 (Information Contents Office) reported the establishment plan and test status of such information security system to Defendant 00, 100, this & & 100, and other officers and employees. The information security system construction plan and test status were reported to Defendant 1, and June 2012.

14. In the case, the above program was distributed to the entire company and was installed on the computers, etc. used by Defendant B employees (hereinafter “the female program” of this case).

However, in the process of installing the female program of this case, Defendant 00 (information content room) did not inform Defendant 2 of the contents of the program’s various characteristics, installation method, etc. (hereinafter “DLP function”) such as the process of the introduction and installation of the program, data or file storage, etc. (the “DLP function” as seen below), and did not receive information protection pledges or written consent from the said employees.

(4) On August 8, 2012, Defendant 10 (Information Content Office) reported to the executive conference of Defendant B the instant Troman program, etc., on a regular basis. Defendant B, the head of the planning and publicity headquarters of Defendant B, notified Defendant B of the need to install the instant Troman program, the test operation of the said program, etc. on August 17, 2012.

(5) However, the Plaintiff Association B’s headquarters went against the introduction, etc. of the female program of this case, and the implementation of the program was completely suspended after the test. Defendant B deleted the female program en bloc at around September 6, 2012, which was installed on the company employees’ computer.

C. Troman’s general characteristics of the instant trojn program and the characteristics of the instant troman’s program (1) is basically allowed to produce information or files, etc. from outside (storage in an external transmission or movement storage device) by directly manipulating on the basis of “user input-based technology” on the basis of “user input-based technology”. In the event that a hacker (hacker) intrudes on the computer network without any user’s manipulation and deducts the information or file, it is a “mack prevention troman’s role to prevent hacking.” On October 9, 2007, the program is a troman’s program certified by the Korea Information and Communications Technology Association after obtaining software quality certification from the Korea Information and Communications Technology Association, and on January 14, 2011.

(2) In addition to the aforementioned basic function, the female program is accompanied by the so-called “loging (lging) function, other than the aforementioned basic function, where a computer user gives or receives the data on the dLP (Datoss Prev), internal data leakage, namely, through web-mail or Mes, or the mobile storage device (USB), or where the data are stored in the mobile storage device (USB), the computer user gives or receives the data on the Megling or the attached file, and the file stored in the mobile storage device are stored in the central server (i.e., the so-called “loging” function so that the data containing the word can be stored in the central server. However, there is only a function to automatically search for a specific word, and only the data containing the word is stored in the central server, and it is not stored in the central server or the data stored in the electronic file being stored in the mobile storage device. In addition, insofar as the computer user does not use the Meging file or the data stored in the mobile storage device.

(3) In the information content room of Defendant B through the distribution program on June 14, 2012, when installing this female program on the computer of its employees, the program included a “roging channel” function, which is an incidental or selective function, in addition to the above “maring prevention of hacking”. (4) The female program of this case is automatically installed on the instant instant wire network, which is linked to the “B portal (Bronet)” through a computer in the inside company or home, by the members of the Defendant B (the Defendants are released to ask whether they agree to the installation before the installation of the program. However, even if the witness Kim- per cent testimony, it cannot be said that there was a need for the installation of a pop-up channel without an accurate explanation on the program, and thus, it cannot be said that there was a need for the installation of the program.

(5) The female program of this case cannot be confirmed with the establishment of a general search source, and it cannot be confirmed whether the program was implemented in the work management center by operating the "saved process."

D. Considering that the number of file Nos. 1 to 5 is 0,000 and the number of file Nos. 1 to 1 to 4, 6, and 1 to 5, the Seoul Southern District Court: (1) reported that the number of file Nos. 1 to 5 and the number of file Nos. 2 to 6, 1 to 6, and 1 to 6, and the number of file Nos. 1 to 6, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, and 1 to 5 to 6, and that the same crime Nos. 1 to 6, 1 to 3, 4, and 1 to 1 to 6, 5, and 1 to 4, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment on the charges of violation of the Act on the Protection of Information and Communications Network (No. 1 to 4, 200). (No. 1 to 6, 200

According to the facts charged as stated in the above revised indictment, the number of files perused by the defendant 100 is * two (the number of files perused by the defendant 230, 256, 356, 399 and No. 408) in the case of the relevant files, 7 in the case of the files related to the plaintiff 100 (the No. 45, 47, 52, 65, 105, 106, 107). The facts charged in the first instance trial were excluded from the facts charged.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 18 (including various numbers for each type of evidence), witness transmission*, * in the trial*, 15, and 18 respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the claims filed by the Plaintiff A, the Korea Press Association B, and the Korea Press Association B

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims

The installation of the instant Troman program was the time when the industrial action by the Plaintiff A Association and the National Press Headquarters B was the first place (the strike was commenced on January 30, 2012 and ending on July 17, 2012). The Defendants installed the instant Troman, thereby collecting the main materials of the labor union, including the Plaintiff’s lecture** * the strike’s place, etc., without any discrimination, and Defendant 00 was also inspected. As such, since the aforementioned plaintiffs’ industrial action as well as the daily union activities are seriously infringed, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the damages amount of KRW 20 million to the above plaintiffs pursuant to Article 751 of the Civil Act.

B. On June 14, 2012, Defendant B’s information content room distributed a female program to B and installed on computers, etc. used by B employees. The fact that Defendant A was subject to criminal punishment for committing an offense, such as perusal of some files stored in B by carrying out a female program of this case by installing a female program, but the facts of each of the above facts of recognition and the statements of evidence Nos. 11 and 12 (including each number of numbers if they are numbered)

It is insufficient to deem that the Defendants seriously infringed upon the industrial action and daily union activities of the members of the above Plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to support this, the above Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the Defendants is rejected (in addition, in case of corporations, etc., the social reputation and credit of the corporations, etc. are damaged to the extent that it may affect the implementation of the intended business and thus the social evaluation is infringed, the corporation shall be liable to compensate for damages other than its property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da12696, Jun. 28, 1996). However, the reason why the industrial action and union activities were interfered with the industrial action cannot be deemed to constitute tort against the above Plaintiffs, a juristic person, even if it is separate from the tort against the members of the association. Accordingly, the above plaintiffs’ claim shall not be deemed to have been any mother

3. The judgment as to the claim * by the plaintiff 100, stronger*, 00, 100, 100, 100, this**, 100, 100, 200, 100, *

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims

The Defendants, without the consent of the parties, installed the female program without permission on the computers of the members B, and the personal data or information stored in the said plaintiffs’ computer was investigated and collected, and kept in Defendant B’s in-house servers. Furthermore, the Defendants were allowed to arbitrarily peruse personal data or information stored in the said plaintiffs’ computer. This constitutes a tort infringing the right to self-determination of personal information of the above plaintiffs. The remaining Defendants except Defendant B are joint tort tort pursuant to Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act, and Defendant B is obligated to pay each of the above plaintiffs the amount of damages for mental damage jointly suffered by the said plaintiffs as an employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

(1) Judgment on the claims made by Plaintiffs 100, 100, 20, 100, **, 00, Kim*

As to the above plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the personal data or information of the above plaintiffs was collected and stored in the defendant B's internal server or that the defendants perused the above plaintiffs' personal data or information collected as above, due to the installation and implementation of the female program of this case. Thus, the above plaintiffs' claims of this case were stored in the defendant B's internal server (the plaintiff 00 and * * in the case of the plaintiff 100) or their personal data or information were stored in the defendant B's internal server (the "t" in the defendant 2's or the computer), and it is difficult to conclude that the above plaintiffs' personal data or information was stored in the defendant B's internal server, but it is difficult to conclude that the above plaintiffs' personal information was stored in the defendant B's internal server only with the evidence of this case, but it cannot be seen that the above plaintiffs' personal data or information was stored in the defendant B's internal server without the above personal data or information's operation of the program of this case * the defendant B's most.

The sole reason is that it is difficult to deem that the above plaintiffs suffered mental loss that can be compensated as consolation money.

(2) Determination on the claims by plaintiffs Song 00 and Kim 00

The above plaintiffs' claims against the defendants were examined and examined, and the defendant 00 perused 3 files related to the plaintiff 00 and 1 files related to the plaintiff 100, which were stored in the defendant 2's internal server, as seen earlier. However, if there is no evidence to confirm the files containing any specific contents, only the title of each file can be known (the part regarding the plaintiff 00, 000 is excluded from the facts charged). For this reason, the changed indictment against the defendant 10 was merely excluded from the facts charged. The circumstance that the plaintiff 00 and 00 files related to the above plaintiffs were installed and operated without the defendant 1's consent, and just because the defendant 100 inspected each file related to the above plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that the above plaintiffs suffered mental damage which could be compensated as consolation money, and since there was no evidence to acknowledge that the above plaintiffs suffered mental damage, the above plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiff 30) and the defendant 100 are without merit.

1) Determination as to the claim against the defendant B and the defendant B

In light of the above facts, it is recognized that the above files perused by the defendant 100 are public relations or news materials, private e-mail, media e-mail, etc., or discussed materials related to the above files, and the specific contents of the above files, the fact that the above plaintiffs and the defendant 100 were in strike, and that the above plaintiffs and the defendant 10 were in conflict with each other, and that the above plaintiffs were in conflict with the defendant 12-6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 without the parties' consent. The above files perused by the defendant 100 were in conflict with the defendant 12-6, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, and 19.

Therefore, Defendant 00 is a party to the above tort, and Defendant 2 is an employer of Defendant 00, and the above plaintiffs are liable to compensate for mental damages caused by the above plaintiffs.

Furthermore, in light of all the circumstances, including the health care room, the overall circumstances and progress of the program installed and operated by the female program of this case, the background leading up to the tort of this case by the defendant 00, the status and status of the defendant 00 and the above plaintiffs, the specific contents, importance and secrecy of the above files perused by the defendant 00, the number of the perused files, the number of the perused files, the number of additional leakage and use of the files (it does not appear that the defendant 00 separately stored the files or reported the perusal to a third party), and all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the measures taken by the above defendants after the fact of perusal was confirmed, and the operational status of the defendant 2 at the time, etc., the consolation money to be compensated by the above defendants shall be determined as 1 million won for the plaintiff * 3 million won for the plaintiff 1 and for the plaintiff 1 million won for the plaintiff 2.

As to this, Defendant 00 asserted that the above act of perusal of the file is "an act to avoid imminent danger" under Article 761 (2) of the Civil Act or "justifiable business act". However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the above act of perusal as "an act of escape" or "a legitimate business act" or "a legitimate business act" under Article 761 (2) of the Civil Act, since there are no evidences to regard the above act of perusal as "an act of perusal" or "a legitimate business act" under Article 761 (2) of the Civil Act, it is difficult to recognize that the above act of perusal by Defendant 00 was not "an act of escape" or "an act of perusal" under Article 761 (2) of the same Act or "an act of legitimate business" under Article 761 (2) of the same Act, there is no need to accept the above claim of Defendant 00 as well as the circumstances such as the situation where the female program was installed and the situation where the above act of perusal by Defendant 100 was inevitablely inevitable, Defendant 000&&& the above facts.

4. Conclusion

If so, Defendant B and Plaintiff B are obligated to pay 300,000 won and its 300,000 won from July 13, 2012 from the date on which the act of perusal of the Plaintiff’s files was completed with respect to the Plaintiff’s above Plaintiff’s 00, and from June 19, 2012, the date on which the Defendants’ 00 terminated the act of perusal of the said Plaintiff’s files. From June 19, 2012, the date on which the Defendants’ 00 terminated the act of perusal of the said Plaintiff’s files. Each of the above Defendants’ 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until February 4, 2015, and from the following day to the date of full payment, the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the claims against the Defendants are all dismissed, and the claims against the Defendants are all dismissed, and the claims against the Defendants against the Plaintiff A, A, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, A, P, P. A, P, P, P, P, P, P. A, P, P, P, P, P. A, P, P. A, P, P, P, P. A, P, P, P, P, P, P. A, P. A, P, P, P, P: