Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A was a public official working as the competent officer of the department in the Ulsan Metropolitan City D, who is engaged in the duties of national and public child-care centers expansion and childcare policy for the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

No person who processes personal information shall divulge personal information he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties or provide it to a third party without authority.

Nevertheless, at around March 14, 2016, Defendant A provided BNK numbers to Defendant B, the head of BNK, the F branch in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and the head of BNK, the head of BNK, without obtaining prior consent from the subject of information, in the case of Ulsan-si, the personal information that the Defendant was under management in order to perform the above duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each police statement made to B, G, H, I, and J;

1. Investigation report (including the list of seized personal information), investigation report (as to consent to provision of personal information through integrated childcare system), and investigation report (as to consent to provision of personal information through integrated childcare system);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning joining the integrated childcare system;

1. Subparagraph 5 of Article 71 of the Personal Information Protection Act and subparagraph 2 of Article 59 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, and selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. The summary of the assertion is that (i) the consent of the head of a child-care center, a subject of information, was obtained with respect to the provision of the above information; (ii) the provision of the above information falls under a case where it is inevitable for a public institution to perform duties under its jurisdiction (Article 15(1)3 of the Personal Information Protection Act) and does not constitute a crime; and (iii) even if not, Defendant A had no intention to commit a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

The argument is asserted.

2. However, in light of the following facts, the defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(a)the use and provision of personal information permitted by the Personal Information Protection Act;