In a case where Defendant (a reporter of the Internet newspaper) was indicted for violating Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act by disclosing personal information, such as the name, status, address, etc. of Party A, which he/she came to know in the course of coverage activities, on the Internet news site, the case holding that “a person who manages or processed personal information” under Articles 71 subparag. 5 and 59 of the same Act cannot be deemed as “personal information manager” under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the same Act.

In a case where Defendant (a reporter of the Internet newspaper) was prosecuted for violating Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) on the ground that he/she divulged personal information, such as the name, status, address, etc. of Party A, which he/she became aware of in the course of coverage activities, on the Internet news site, the case holding that Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act imposes a requirement that “the operation of a personal information file” should be distinguished from a person who manages personal information without the purpose of operating the personal information file (Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Act separately defined “personal information” and “management” in Article 59 of the Act, and Article 71 subparag. 1 of the Act provides that “a person who manages or was processed personal information,” separate from a personal information manager, and Article 71 subparag. 2 and Article 19 of the Act provides a third party with personal information without the consent of the owner of the personal information,” and Article 55 subparag. 5 of the Act provides a personal information manager with the personal information processing.

Subparagraph 1, 2, and 5 of Article 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 19, Article 58(1)4, Article 59 Subparag. 2, Article 71 Subparag. 1, 2, and 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act

Defendant

Islele et al.

Law Firm Sin Law Firm, Attorney Kim Jae-hoon

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

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant is a reporter belonging to the Internet newspaper ○○○○○.

No person who has managed or processed personal information shall divulge personal information he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties or provide it to another

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2014. 11. 25. 15:07경 서울 마포구 도화동 소재 인터넷 신문인 ○○○○의 인터넷 뉴스 사이트(사이트 주소 생략)에 “이곳에 씨앤앰을 공짜로 보는 ‘공소외 1’이 살고 있다”라는 제목으로 “서울 용산구 이태원동 xxx-xx번지(주소 특정하여 기재)는 아침드라마에 나오는 ‘회장님 댁’ 같았다. 맞다. 여기는 회장님이 살고 있는 곳이다. 서울지하철 6호선 이태원역 2번 출입구로 나와 걸어서 10분, 등에 땀이 송골송골 맺힐 즈음 도착한 곳은 고 공소외 2 △△△ 명예회장의 사위이자 M＆A(인수합병) 업계의 큰손인 □□□ 파트너스 공소외 1 회장 저택이다. 우편함에는 저 멀리 뉴욕에서 날아온 편지가 있었다. 수신자는 ‘공소외 1’이었고 발신자는 뉴욕의 한 금융회사인 것 같았다.”라는 내용의 기사를 게재하여 일반인으로 하여금 이를 열람할 수 있도록 함으로써, 인터넷 언론의 기자로서 취재 활동 중에 알게 된 위 공소외 1의 성명, 지위, 주소 등의 개인정보를 누설하였다.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 2 by the police officer

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 3

1. Articles closure data;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Article 71 Subparag. 5 and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the personal information manager who manages personal information in order to operate the personal information file pursuant to Article 71 subparagraph 5 and Article 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") shall be punished in cases where the personal information manager divulges the personal information he/she learned in the course of performing his/her duties, and that the newspaper reporter, like the defendant, cannot be punished

(1) Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act provides that “A person who manages or has managed personal information” shall be punished for providing personal information to a third party without the consent of the owner of the personal information, and Article 71 subparag. 2 and Article 19 of the Act provides that “A person who, without the consent of the owner of the personal information, manages or has provided personal information to a third party by himself/herself or through another person.” This requires that “A person who, without the purpose of managing the personal information file, processes or has provided personal information to a third party” (Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Act provides that “A person who, without the consent of the owner of the personal information, manages or has provided the personal information,” and Article 71 subparag. 1 of the Act provides that “A person who, without the consent of the owner of the personal information, manages or has provided the personal information to a third party,” and Article 71 subparag. 2 and Article 19 of the Act separately provides the personal information to a third party.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act provides that Articles 3 through 7 of the Act shall not apply to personal information collected and used by the press in order to achieve its own purpose, such as coverage and news report, and that "use of personal information" means "report" of personal information collected in the news gathering process. Thus, the defendant's reporting of personal information of non-indicted 1 for the news reporting of this case is based on the above provision, and thus, the Personal Information Protection Act does not apply.

In light of the purport of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act does not apply to the exception of Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act, and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act does not apply to Chapter 3 through Chapter 7 of the Act, and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act, which is a penal provision for the defendant, is a provision that belongs to Chapter 8 of the Act, and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act provides that exceptions are limited to “collection”, “use”, “provision”, and “disclosure”. The Personal Information Protection Act provides for the distinction between “collection”, “use” and “disclosure”, and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act provides for the distinction between news gathering and reporting.

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the deletion of personal information and the first offender after the divulgence of personal information, the punishment shall be determined as per the order.

Judges Park Young-chul