beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.09.27 2013노659

개인정보보호법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding defendant on April 10, 2012 and

4. 23. There was a fact that D’s resident registration record card was perused without going through due process, but thereafter, it did not obtain D/ E’s personal information by unlawful means or method, as the legitimate bond and debt-related party prepared an application for perusal of the resident registration record card attached to the transaction specification list and perused D/ E’s resident registration record card.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. According to Articles 29(2)6 and 29(4) of the Resident Registration Act, a person who has a legitimate interest in claims and debts may file an application for perusal or issuance of an abstract of a resident registration record card. Article 47(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act lists the scope of persons who have a legitimate interest in claims and debts pursuant to Article 29(2)6 of the same Act, and lists the scope of persons who have a legitimate interest in claims and debts, etc.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, the defendant prepared and submitted an application for perusal or issuance of an abstract of a resident registration record card to the Myeon Office on May 222, 2012, and May 23, 2012, 2012, stating that the purpose and purpose of the application for payment order is the confirmation of personal information to apply for payment order. The defendant can recognize the fact that he/she attached the transaction list of the agricultural cooperative account account in which the deposit owner was the deposit owner. As long as the defendant submitted an application for perusal or delivery of the abstract of the resident registration record card as above, it is difficult to view that the defendant acquired D or E personal information by unlawful means or method, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

However, even if the defendant submitted an application for inspection or delivery of an abstract of the resident registration record card on May 8, 2012, it shall be deemed that the defendant submitted it.