logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.10.06 2014노3034
개인정보보호법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

As long as the Defendants informed the victim’s cell phone number to the garbage collection company without the victim’s explicit consent, it constitutes an element of violation of the Personal Information Protection Act. The Defendants had the opportunity to verify the victim’s intent to provide personal information before informing the victim of the victim’s cell phone number to the garbage collection company, so the Defendants’ act cannot be deemed as either based on the victim’s presumed consent or legitimate act

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

Defendant A is a Grade 8 public official in charge of waste management, etc. in the Environment Ecology and Waste Management Team in Gwangju-gu Office, and Defendant B is a inorganic contract public official who assists the above A, etc. in civil affairs at the above waste management team and manages personal information of civil petitioners, etc.

Defendant

A around 17:19 on April 9, 2014, at the D Office Environmental Ecology and Waste Management Team office located in Gwangju-si, and at the D Office’s office of the Waste Management Team, “Sme is serious because it does not cause any food waste in the house,” written the victim’s cell phone number, which is the personal information irrelevant to the caller for the caller, without the victim’s consent, and entered the victim’s cell phone number in the body, and returned from the outside to the Defendant B without the victim’s consent, and the Defendant B sent the victim’s cell phone number at around 17:26 on the same day without the victim’s consent.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to disclose the victim's personal information known to him/her in the course of performing his/her duties without the consent of the victim or provided it to another person

Judgment

The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

arrow