정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(정보통신망침해등)
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) The name, resident registration number, address, and other personal information of another person does not constitute “other person’s confidential information” under Article 49 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”).
Even if a person’s confidential information constitutes a “other person’s confidential information”, it cannot be said that another person’s confidential information acquired and disclosed by the Defendant is obtained by unlawful means, such as intrusion on the information and communications network, and even if so, it does not constitute a divulgence of confidential information since the purchaser of personal information who purchased the confidential information from the Defendant
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it refers to the fact that another person’s secret under Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act is not generally known, and it is the principal’s interest in not notifying it to another person.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2212 Decided January 12, 2012). In addition, personal information that combines another person’s name and resident registration number, or his/her address, telephone number, and e-mail address is disclosed to the general public or easily accessible to anyone, and thus, is not generally known. In light of the fact that there are many cases where an individual’s identity is made through personal information, such as his/her resident registration number, telephone number, address, e-mail address, etc. in the modern society, and the need to protect such information is recognized, non-disclosure of such fact can be deemed as benefit to the principal.
Therefore, another person's name, and