In a case where the Defendants conspired to install a gPS device on the Defendant’s automobile, sold the automobile to B via the Internet-based shop, and collected the location information of the automobile to Defendant A’s cell phone without the Defendant’s consent before completing the registration of the automobile, and was prosecuted for violating the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information, the case affirming the Defendants guilty.

In a case where the Defendants conspired to install a gPS device on a motor vehicle owned by Defendant A and sold a motor vehicle to Defendant B via the Internet-based shop, and Party B was indicted for violating the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information (hereinafter “Personal Location Information Protection Act”), the case held that the Defendants guilty of the act of collecting and providing location information to the relevant individual or the owner of a mobile object on the ground that, in a case where an individual possessing a mobile object is comprehensively included in cases where the individual is the owner of a mobile object and the owner of a mobile object are not the owner of the mobile object, and the individual’s consent is not obtained even if the third party, who is the owner of the mobile object, is not the owner of the mobile object, in cases where the owner of the mobile object was in possession of the mobile object owned by the third party, in full view of the legislative intent and legal interest of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information, and the text of Article 15(1) of the same Act.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 1, 15(1), and 40 subparag. 4 of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information

Defendant 1 and two others

Nowon-gu et al.

Law Firm Skho et al.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive against Defendant 3.

Probation and community service for 160 hours against Defendant 3 shall be ordered.

1. Fraud;

According to Defendant 3’s proposal, the Defendants installed a GPS device in the BMW Z4 car owned by Defendant 1 (vehicle number omitted), sold the said car through the Internet site, and conspired to acquire the purchase price of the car by means of using auxiliary key after identifying the location of the said car.

Defendant 2, on February 22, 2016, on the Internet page “○○○○○” and posted a false statement to sell the said car on the sales website. However, the Defendants: (a) delivered the said car, received the sales price; and (b) did not have the intent or ability to sell the said car; and (c) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 contacted the victim Nonindicted 1 to purchase the said car; (d) around 01:30 on February 23, 2016, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received the said car sales price from the said victim at KRW 9.9 million and delivered the said car at KRW 1,90,000; and (e) on the same day, he moved the said car to the said apartment parking lot, which is located in the victim’s domicile, located in Dobong-gu, Seoul, Seoul, which was located in the GPS system installed in the said car, at around 05:17.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive the goods.

2. Violation of the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information;

No person shall collect, use, or provide location information on an individual or mobile object without the consent of the individual or the owner of the mobile object.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to install a GPS device at the bottom of (vehicle number omitted) BMW Z4 car operation, and collected the location information of a mobile object after being transmitted to Defendant 1’s cell phone to the △ apartment parking lot located in Dobong-gu Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul, at around 01:30 on February 23, 2016, at around 01:30 on the same day without the consent of Nonindicted 1, who purchased the said car as set forth in the above paragraph 1, and at around 5:30 on February 23, 2016.

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 (including the part concerning the statement of Defendant 2)

1. An interrogation protocol of Defendant 3 by the prosecution;

1. The second police interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 contains some statements;

1. Third police interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 (including the part in which the statements are written by Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2)

1. Some statements made by Defendant 2 in the police interrogation protocol;

1. Second police interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 (including the part on which the statement was written by Nonparty 1 and Nonindicted 3)

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 3

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 4

1. Two copies of a photograph of the (vehicle number omitted) vehicle parked in the parking lot for the dwelling of the suspect;

1. The suspect's cell phone image showing the location of his cell phone;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 40 subparag. 4 of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information, Article 15(1) of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information (violation of Prohibition, etc. of Collection of Location Information), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 3

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant 3: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

【Judgment on the Defendant 1 and the defense counsel’s argument】

1. Defendant 1 and his defense counsel’s assertion

The Defendants asserted that the owner of a vehicle in which the GPS devices are installed is Defendant 1, and that Defendant 1’s installation of the GPS on his own vehicle does not constitute an element of a violation of the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information, since he obtained consent from the owner and collected location information.

2. Determination

A. Article 1 of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information (hereinafter “Information Protection”) provides that “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the improvement of people’s lives and the enhancement of public welfare by protecting privacy from the divulgence, misuse, and abuse of location information, creating an environment for safe use of location information, and facilitating the use of location information.” Meanwhile, Article 15(1) of the Location Information Protection Act provides that “No person shall collect, use, or provide location information of an individual or mobile object without the consent of the individual or the owner thereof.”

B. In a comprehensive interpretation of the legislative purport and legal interest of the Location Information Protection Act and the language and text of the aforementioned provision, it is interpreted that ① the consent of the person in question should be obtained in order to collect, use, or provide personal location information, and ② the consent of the person in question or the owner of the mobile object should be obtained when collecting the location information of the mobile object. The purport of this provision is to obtain the consent of the person in question or the owner of the mobile object. It is reasonable to comprehensively include cases where an individual in possession of the mobile object is the owner or the owner of the mobile object in question. In other words, even if an individual in this case consented, if the third party in possession of the mobile object in question did not obtain the consent of the person in question, it is prohibited from collecting, using, or providing location information of the mobile object in question, unless the person in question or the owner of the mobile object in question obtains the consent of the person in question or the owner of the mobile object in question. For example, if the person in question purchases the vehicle in question but uses the mobile object without completing the registration of location information, it should not be justified.

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: From one month to fifteen years of imprisonment; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Fraud

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Fraud> Type 1 (less than KRW 100,000) ( Imprisonment with labor 6 months to 1 June).

【Special Person under Guard】

Where the Criminal Code is extremely poor;

[Special Mitigation]

In the case of a failure to punish or a considerable damage recovery;

(b) Violation of the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information: Crimes not setting the sentencing criteria;

(c) Scope of final sentence for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months (in cases of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among crimes of fraud for which the sentencing criteria are set and violations of the Act on the Protection and Use, etc. of Location Information for which no sentencing guidelines are set, the lower limit thereof shall follow the lower limit of the range

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances, such as the defendants' age, family relation, and tendency, shall be determined as per Disposition in consideration of the overall circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

The circumstances favorable to ○○: The Defendants’ depth and reflects their own criminal conduct; Defendant 3 was unable to repay the money borrowed from Defendant 1; Defendant 2 proposed ways to provide money using the instant vehicle; Defendant 3 submitted a written agreement stating the victim’s intent to not pay punishment to the victim and Defendant 2; Defendant 3 submitted a written agreement stating the victim’s intent to pay the victim KRW 3 million to the victim; Defendant 1 submitted a written agreement stating the victim’s intention to not pay punishment.

○○ Unfavorable Normal : The instant vehicle was unable to pay the installment, and was seized by the mortgagee. However, when the Defendants were unable to sell the vehicle due to these circumstances, Defendant 3 paid KRW 3 million to Defendant 1 and terminated the seizure. When a lot of time was needed for Defendant 2 to normally reproduce the starting key of the instant vehicle, Defendant 2 copied the starting key of the instant vehicle to Gunsan by finding out the place where Defendant 2 copied the starting key of the vehicle, and Defendant 1 affixed GPS to search again after selling the instant vehicle, attached the GPS in order to recover the said vehicle, and used another vehicle to recover the sold vehicle in advance. Defendant 1 was planning to commit the instant crime by not being able to obtain reimbursement from Nonindicted 2 who was entirely unrelated to the instant case at the early stage of the investigation, and Defendant 1, despite the fact that Defendant 1 was unable to obtain reimbursement from Defendant 1, Defendant 2, the owner of the instant vehicle, on the ground that Defendant 1 was not 90,000, Defendant 200.

Judges Kim Jong-ran

1) In the same way, where an individual owns a movable object owned by a third party, even if the individual consented, the act of collecting, using, or providing location information of the individual or mobile object is also prohibited (e.g., the act of collecting, providing location information of the individual or mobile object without the consent of the owner of the mobile object). It is reasonable to interpret that the act of collecting, using, or providing location information of the vehicle owned by the father is also prohibited (i.e., the act of using the vehicle owned by the father, and even if the father's creditor obtained the consent of the individual, the act of collecting location information of the