2013 High Court 2030 Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

A

The Minister of Justice shall hold a public trial for the Ministry of Justice.

Law Firm (LLC) B

Attorney C, D

February 7, 2014

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Criminal facts

The defendant is the director of the department in the Jung-gu EF University EF University in Seoul, while G is the director of the same department.

A personal information manager shall not use personal information or provide it to a third party beyond the scope of the purpose of collection.

Nevertheless, around March 6, 2013, the Defendant, as a personal information manager, submitted a complaint against G to the Seoul Western Police Station located in Jung-gu Seoul Central District, Jung-gu, Seoul, 249-2 about defamation. On February 27, 2013, the Defendant used G personal information beyond the scope of the purpose of collection by entering the name, address, and cell phone number of G personal information provided by H in the above complaint.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A complaint filed by G;

1. Fact-finding certificates;

1. A copy of the complaint filed by a defendant;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 71 Subparag. 2 and Article 18(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

1. The assertion that it does not meet the requirements for establishment;

A. The assertion

The defendant's act constitutes a case where it is necessary to achieve legitimate interests of the personal information manager under Article 15 (1) 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act, which clearly takes precedence over the right of the owner of the information, and therefore constitutes an element of establishment.

B. Determination

Article 15 (1) of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that "personal information manager may collect personal information in certain cases and use it for the purpose of collection", and one of the cases where the personal information manager can collect and use it is one of the cases where it is necessary to achieve legitimate interests of the personal information manager, which clearly takes precedence over the right of the subject of information."

However, in light of the language and text of the above provision, even if it is necessary to achieve the legitimate interest of the personal information manager and it is clearly superior to the right of the subject of information, the personal information manager may use the personal information for the purpose of collecting the personal information. In other words, even if the defendant required to file a complaint using the personal information of G in order to achieve his/her own legitimate interest, in order to use the personal information of G for this purpose, he/she should have collected the personal information of G for the purpose of using it. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant can only recognize the fact that he/she collected the personal information of G, including G, in order to establish an emergency contact network by taking office as the principal of a department, rather than to use it for filing a complaint. Ultimately, since the defendant used the personal information of G in order to file a complaint different from the purpose of collection, the above act does not constitute Article

In addition, when the defendant files a complaint against G, it is difficult to see that the defendant's act constitutes a case under Article 15 (1) 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act, in addition to the name of G where the defendant has already been aware of not as a personal information manager but as a personal information manager, personal information such as G address and mobile phone number is not necessarily necessary, and the defendant's interest which can be achieved by filing a complaint from G using the personal information of G is clearly superior to that of G. It is difficult

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

2. The assertion that there is no illegality

A. The assertion

The defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act and is not illegal.

B. Determination

"Acts which do not violate social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Whether certain acts constitute legitimate acts that do not violate social norms and thus, the illegality of the act should be avoided individually and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate acts, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003).

In this case, the defendant's act did not meet the requirements of urgency and supplement among the above requirements to recognize a legitimate act, in light of the circumstance that the defendant's personal information, such as G's address, mobile phone number, etc., is not necessarily required to be stated in the complaint.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

Judges Lee Jin-hun