logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2014노2566
개인정보보호법위반등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Article 71 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information provides that a personal information manager shall punish a personal information manager if the personal information manager uses the personal information beyond the scope of the purpose of collection, and the Defendant is merely a personal information manager who manages the personal information under the direction and supervision of the personal information manager, not a personal information manager, and thus, cannot be the subject of Article 71 subparag. 2 of the

Article 1 subparag. 1 of the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the relevant personal information constitutes a personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act (including information that can be easily combined with other information, even if the information alone does not make it possible to identify a specific individual). As such, personal identification information constitutes a personal information under the said Act, and such information does not constitute a personal information.

Article 71 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information for the Purposes of Collection is a provision to punish cases where personal information collected by a personal information manager is used beyond the scope of the purpose of collection. Thus, the perusal of personal information by the defendant, who is the information manager, does not constitute the use prohibited by the above provision.

The police computer network stated in the facts charged of this case does not correspond to the criminal justice information system, and even if the family police computer network corresponds to the judicial information system, the perusal of the defendant's designated inquiry is an act of using it for improper purposes, such as leakage of criminal justice information or handling without authority or providing another person with access to it, etc. under Article 15 (2) of the Promotion of the Electronicization of Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow