Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenario) interpreted the concept of "the provision of personal information to a third party" as "the provision of personal information to a person who is not an employee of the association is transferred for the benefit or business of the person who is provided with ownership or right to use the personal information" as prohibited under the Personal Information Protection Act, and determined that the defendant Eul was not guilty since the defendant Eul received the personal information to assist the defendant Eul's chief director of the association. However, as long as the defendant Eul was a person who is entirely unrelated to the E-credit union (hereinafter "the union of this case") and physically transferred personal information to the defendant Eul, the right to dispose thereof is also the defendant Eul, but the defendant Gap was entitled to access the personal information of the association members to hold an extraordinary general meeting, but it appears that the provision of personal information to the defendant Eul who is not an employee of the association would be prohibited under the Personal Information Protection Act, and it appears that the personal information manager was not permitted to use the information within the scope of its purpose, and that the personal information was not permitted to be delivered to the defendant Eul.