The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: Defendant B, the head of the apartment management office of this case, was issued a letter of consent to the dismissal of the representative of the Dong (hereinafter referred to as “written consent to the dismissal of this case”) in which some residents, such as D, submitted by the chairperson of the apartment management office of this case to examine the legitimacy of the request for the dismissal of the representative of the Dong (hereinafter referred to as “written consent to the dismissal of this case”) under joint signature; and Defendant A disclosed personal information that he/she knew to the representative of the Dong on February 19, 2014; Defendant A received personal information for an unlawful purpose with knowledge of the above circumstances; Defendant A received such personal information from Defendant B; Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 subparag. 2 of the former Personal Information Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12504, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “Personal Information Protection Act”).

The court below partially cited the judgment of the first instance, thereby constituting an act of divulging personal information that a “person who manages or was in charge of the management of personal information” under Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that “a person who divulges personal information he/she learned in the course of performing his/her duties,” and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act defines a public institution, corporation, organization, individual, etc. that processes personal information directly or through another person as a “personal information manager,” and Defendant B temporarily owned the personal information of the occupants as stated in the written consent of dismissal.

Even if a person is not in the position of a “personal information manager” who manages personal information by himself/herself or through another person to operate a “personal information file” for the purpose of performing the duties prescribed in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the above Act, and thus does not meet the composition requirements under Articles 71 subparag. 5 and 59 subparag. 2.

The judgment of the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case.