The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles or mistake of facts) F does not constitute “personal information manager” under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”).

Therefore, the Defendant’s act of receiving CCTV videos from F does not constitute an act punishable under Article 71 subparag. 1 of the Act.

D Since it was not eligible to participate in the instant emergency executive conference, it does not violate the law even if the Defendant was provided with CCTV screened from D.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) was a person in charge of the representative director of the C Apartment; and (b) was required to provide “emergency executive CCTV image data” which is personal information to prepare for the selection of an apartment guard station and related transmission; (c) the file containing CCTV video information from the C Apartment on March 12, 2017 at the management office of the C Apartment on March 15:30, 2017; (d) on March 6, 2017, the files that contain video information from the C Apartment’s Emergency Executive Meeting at the management office of the C Apartment, Nowon-gu, Seoul; and (e) without the consent of D (52 years old) and five other persons, who are the data subject of the said emergency executive meeting; and (e) without the approval of E, the head of the apartment management office, who is the data subject of information processing, via the F (OB) of the Defendant’s electrical engineer of the said apartment management office.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground that the act of receiving the above CCTV images from F without consent constitutes “the act of receiving personal information from a person who manages personal information without permission” under Articles 71 subparag. 1 and 17(1) of the Act, on the ground that it is recognized that F is an employee of the above apartment management office that takes charge of the duties of perusal and reproduction of the CCTV images under the delegation of the warden’s personal information manager with respect to the above CCTV images, and that the Defendant’s receipt of the above CCTV images from F without consent constitutes “the act of receiving personal information from a person who manages personal information.”

4.The deliberation of the Council.