개인정보보호법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, if the defendant provided a list of union members to a person who has no name but to make a telephone to union members, it is intended to appeal to the ility of an extraordinary general meeting held to dismiss him/her as the president
Therefore, the defendant's act is used within the scope of the purpose of collecting personal information, and the illegality is excluded because it is a legitimate act as an act within the ordinary scope of business of the president.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio determination.
In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the permission of modification of a bill of indictment with the content that the facts charged are alternatively added as follows, and this court's permission has changed the subject of the trial, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.
3. The Defendant additionally charged with selective charge is a personal information manager who manages personal information, such as the name, resident registration number, contact number, and the unit of the association head of the association for reconstruction of apartment housing B.
A personal information manager may use personal information within the scope of the purpose of collection.
Nevertheless, on May 2016, the Defendant: (a) provided a list of names, telephone numbers, and club numbers to 411 of the union members with the intent to obstruct the union members from participating in the said extraordinary meeting with a view to obstructing the union members from participating in the said extraordinary meeting; and (b) provided a nameless person with a false call to the union members for a false speech; and (c) sent the nameless person with a false call to the union members to “I cannot attend the extraordinary meeting because I would not have the union participate in the regular meeting.”
Accordingly, the Defendant used personal information beyond the scope of the purpose of collecting personal information with consent from its members.
4. Conclusion of the judgment of the court below as above Paragraph 2.