beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) and the method of managing the personal information of the victim company, the judgment below acquitted the victim, even though the personal information of this case can be deemed to have been kept confidential by considerable effort, was erroneous.
2. Determination:
A. In full view of the legal principles and circumstances in the judgment, the lower court determined that the customer’s personal information at issue in the instant case was insufficient to view that the victim’s “reasonable effort” was kept confidential.
Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.
B. On September 1, 2008, from around September 3, 2009 to around September 3, 2009, the Defendant was working as an insurance solicitor of the Victim Company D (hereinafter “C”) and transferred his workplace to “E (hereinafter “E”) who is a competitor.” At the time of working in D, the Defendant, at the time of “D”, sent the personal information, which is a major business asset of the said company, including the name, resident registration number, address, contact address, e-mail address, vehicle ownership information, etc., from the Internet evasion company and sent out the personal information, which is a major business asset of the said company, and provided telephone counseling, such as renewal of the insurance contract and new information, and the Defendant, who is in charge of the said work, has immediately discarded or returned the printed information to the company immediately after the completion of counseling and has not returned it to the company, and has not taken it out to the company individually, and has maintained the printed matter in violation of the Defendant’s duty.