Defendant

Defendant

The court below's holding of office and the court below's holding of office;

Attorney Lee Sung-hoon

Suwon District Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 257 decided July 16, 2019

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

The “number of new construction buildings allocated” and “portable telephone numbers”, which are information not disclosed by the Defendant, are irrelevant to the purpose of requesting the disclosure of information and are not subject to such request.

B. Legal principles

Since the defendant disclosed some of the information to a legal counsel, there is a justifiable reason for a mistake in law.

(3) The Defendant’s defense counsel asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the grounds of appeal on August 29, 2019. The Defendant’s defense counsel asserted unfair sentencing on the first day of September 27, 2019, which was followed by the lapse of the period for filing the grounds of appeal on September 27, 2019. Even if ex officio, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles,

2. Determination

The Defendant has presented the same argument as the argument alleged in the lower court. The lower court rejected the argument in detail on the following grounds. The lower court determined that ① the Defendant is unrelated to the “owner’s property right protection and performance of audit” which is the object of the request for disclosure of information which was lawfully adopted and investigated by Nonindicted Party members. However, the Defendant did not appear to be irrelevant to the audit and inspection conducted by the said Nonindicted Party at the time, and the information is subject to perusal and reproduction of the documents or related materials regarding the implementation of the rearrangement project (see Article 124(4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 15676, Jun. 12, 2018; hereinafter “former Urban Improvement Act”). ② The Defendant did not disclose his/her mobile phone number for other purposes than the purpose of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (see Article 127(1) of the former Act, which is likely to unfairly infringe on the personal information of the said Nonindicted Party, except for the case where the said Nonindicted Party did not use his/her personal Information for other than the Act was publicly known.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)