Defendant 1 and one other

The decoration, indictment, and Lee Jong-hoon (Trial)

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants shall be announced publicly.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant 2 is a personal information manager who served as the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) ○○ apartment management office from January 16, 2013 to April 13, 2014.

On February 18, 2014, at the above management office around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) received a written consent from the chairman of the above apartment management office; and (b) Nonindicted Party 1, etc., from 312 households among 1,320 households, for the said nine representative of the apartment complex, a written consent of dismissal, stating the number, name, contact number, signature, etc., along with a request for review of its legality; (c) around February 19, 2014, the Defendant provided Defendant 1, the same representative of the above management office, who is subject to dismissal, to peruse the said written consent.

Accordingly, the Defendant disclosed personal information that he came to know as a personal information manager.

B. On February 19, 2014, at the above management office around 14:00, Defendant 1 perused the written consent of dismissal of the said representative for the purpose of using it for criminal case complaint, and received personal information by means of entering the name “non-public prosecution 2” and “(Handphone number omitted)” in the written consent of dismissal of the said representative in the domain.

Accordingly, the Defendant received the personal information manager with knowledge of the divulgence of personal information that he/she learned in the course of his/her duties for an unlawful purpose.

2. Determination

A. The record reveals the following facts.

1) From January 16, 2013 to April 13, 2014, Defendant 2 served as the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu ( Address omitted) ○○○ apartment management office.

2) On February 18, 2014, the occupants of 312 households among the above apartment units 1,320 households, including Nonindicted 1, including Nonindicted 1, etc., requested the head of the election commission to dismiss the said representative nine members, who were at issue, due to Nonindicted 3’s fraudulent act related to the bidding of the apartment construction by the council of occupants’ representatives, and requested the dismissal of the said representative nine members. The said 312 occupants’ consent to dismissal was issued to the said nine members, in which they jointly signed.

3) On February 18, 2014, the chairman of the above election management commission requested Defendant 2, who was the chief of the management office, to examine the legality of the request for dismissal of the said representative, and issued a written consent for dismissal of the said representative prepared jointly by 312 occupants.

4) However, around February 19, 2014, Defendant 2 offered the aforementioned written consent of dismissal to Defendant 1 of 102 representative, one of the technical directors of the above council of occupants’ representatives subject to the motion of dismissal, who was the technical directors of the council of occupants’ representatives.

5) On February 24, 2014, Defendant 1 filed a criminal complaint against Nonindicted 2’s husband Nonindicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s husband, and submitted to the complaint, the phone number of Nonindicted 2, which was known in the perusal of the written consent to the above dismissal, was stated and submitted.

(b) the applicable law;

Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12504, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that "personal information manager" means a public institution, corporation, organization, individual, etc. that processes personal information on his/her own or through another person to operate a personal information file for the purpose of his/her duties, and “personal information manager” refers to information about a living person, which can be identified by using his/her name, resident registration number, image, etc. (including information that can be identified by combining it with other information, even if the information alone cannot be identified by a specific person), and “management” refers to information about a living person, such as collection, creation, recording, storage, holding, processing, editing, searching, searching, printing, correcting, using, disclosing, destroying, or any other similar act; and “personal information file” refers to a systematic arrangement of personal information or a gathering of personal information in accordance with a certain rule so that the personal information can be easily searched.

On the other hand, Article 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that one of the prohibited acts of a person who manages or was engaged in the management of personal information shall divulge personal information that he/she has become aware of in the course of his/her duties or provide such information to another person without authority, and Article 75 Subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that a person who divulges personal information he/she has become aware of in the course of his/her duties in violation of Article 59 Subparag. 2 or provides such information to another person without authority and a person who knowingly

C. Article 75 Subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the same Act stipulate an act of divulging personal information that a person who has managed or processed personal information has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties, and Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the same Act defines a public institution or an individual who processes personal information directly or through another person as a personal information manager to operate personal information files for the purpose of his/her duties. Thus, whether Defendant 2 is a personal information manager

Based on the above law, even if Defendant 2 received a written consent from the chairman of the above apartment management office to examine the legality of the above apartment management office’s request for dismissal from the said representative and received the same representative’s “written consent of dismissal” jointly prepared by the occupants, it cannot be said that he/she is in the position of a person who handles personal information by himself/herself or via another person for the purpose of operating the “personal information file” for the purpose of business prescribed in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant 2’s act of providing a resident Nonindicted 2’s personal information to Defendant 1, among the representatives who are the subjects of Nonindicted 2’s request for dismissal, constitutes a tort, unless Defendant 2 is or was in the personal information manager, it constitutes a crime of violation of Article 75 subparag. 5 and Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, which punishs the act of divulging the personal information of a person who managed or handled the personal information.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case against the defendants do not constitute a crime or there is no proof of a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendants is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Park Jong-chul