The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The facts charged are those who managed or managed the personal information on CCTV installed for the purpose of crime prevention and facility safety management in the above apartment complex while serving as the head of the management office of the apartment complex D with the wife population from October 14, 2017 to January 21, 2018. The Defendant is a person who is working as the head of the development council of the above apartment from January 2016.

On December 18, 2017, the Defendant knew that C had no authority to do so at the above D Apartment Management Office, and knew that C was not a representative of each apartment building, the Defendant received data by cutting off the CCTV images, a personal information containing the page that “E was illegal in the course of the election of the representative of each apartment building” from C, and submitted a copy of the above data to E, without legitimate authority, at the time of the same day, the Defendant submitted a copy of the above data to the Young-gu Seoul East Police Station-ro 143, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and leaked it as evidentiary materials.

2. Determination

A. Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act of the part in which personal information was received provides “a person who discloses or provides another person with no authority to use personal information that he/she knew in the course of his/her duties, and a person who knowingly receives such personal information for profit or for an illegal purpose.” As such, the Defendant received the personal information of E for profit or for an unjust purpose.

In full view of the Defendant’s legal statement, written public notice, written public notice, written investigation report (A data confirmation report), etc., the Defendant, as the president of the D Apartment Development Council, attached a notice to the effect that the representative election is null and void to each of the bulletin boards and elevators, and the Defendant removed this fact. Accordingly, the Defendant changed the CCTV to C, a manager of the management affairs office, and the Defendant confirmed the CCTV as E. As the result of the CCTV verification, the Defendant issued a written petition against the police for the crime of damaging property damage to E, and carried out a CCTV-cap photograph containing the form of E.