beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
Defendant
A, B, C, and D do not pay each of the above penalties.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A is an employee of Defendant E Company as the head of the management office of the Daejeon Seo-gu I Apartment-gu, Daejeon, and Defendant B, C, and D are members of the emergency countermeasure committee composed of some residents of the same apartment.
I apartment is an apartment with a total of 1,146 residents residing, and the J, which was elected as a sole candidate by holding the tenant representative election on May 14, 2012, but some residents such as Defendant B, C, D, etc. raised the suspicion of illegal election, and constituted an emergency countermeasure committee.
On June 3, 2012, the Emergency Countermeasure Committee held a public hearing while only 70 residents among all residents are present, and tried to examine whether voters actually cast their votes or not.
1. On June 9, 2012, Defendant A, a personal information manager managing the tenant list as the head of the apartment management office, began to obtain a written consent from some occupants on the part of the emergency management office office office on the contents of “the suspicion of illegal election should be clarified through a complete inspection,” and did not obtain consent from all occupants on the provision of personal information, such as telephone numbers. Defendant B, C, and D provided a list of occupants, which contain all personal information, including 341 telephone numbers of the occupants who were the voters of the election for the representatives of occupants’ representatives, and Defendant B, C, and D provided them with the knowledge that there was no consent of the owner of the information, by allowing them to peruse the four occupants’ list, and by confirming whether to vote by telephone numbers of the occupants listed therein, Defendant B, C, and D provided them with the knowledge that there was no consent of the owner of the information.
2. Defendant E Co., Ltd., as indicated in paragraph 1, provided Defendant B, C, and D with personal information of 341 residents living in the book without consent of the owner of the information, as Defendant E, an employee.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ each.