The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is that the instant personal information is disclosed through the intra-company computer network by the labor union members, a data subject, and at least there was an implied consent of the union members to the extent that the said personal information is provided to the union members. Thus, the Defendant’s act violates Article 19 or Article 59 subparag. 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant became a member of a trade union from September 7, 198 to September 2008, and served as the chairperson of a trade union from around 2008 to 2010, and currently serves as a representative for appointment.

A person who has been provided with personal information from a personal information processing person shall not provide the personal information to a third party without obtaining a separate consent from the subject of information, and a person who has managed or processed the personal information shall not divulge another person's personal information without due authority or beyond the permitted authority.

The Defendant, at the office of two factories of D Co., Ltd., Ltd., in which the Defendant is working in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Busan-gu, on March 2016, the same year.

2. Although there was no legitimate authority to possess, collect, and manage personal information, such as the name of 2,569 members of the labor union, mobile phone numbers, and e-mail addresses provided by F-related companies (D, G, H, and I) from the Labor UnionJ of F (D, H, and I), the file in which the said personal information was stored was provided to K without a separate consent from 2,569 members of the said labor union who are data subjects.

As a result, the Defendant provided a third party with personal information provided by the data subject without obtaining a separate consent from the data subject, and disclosed another person's personal information without legitimate authority.

B. The lower court determined that the instant personal information provided by the Defendant to K is F-related company.