The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant worked as the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from August 1, 2017 to the head of the management office, and is the personal information manager. The personal information manager can use personal information only within the scope prescribed by the Personal Information Protection Act, such as the case of obtaining consent from the owner of the information collected, and is prohibited from using personal information beyond the scope. On May 21, 2018, the Defendant, within the above apartment management office, on May 23, 2018, produced 2 minutes of 5 minutes of video (hereinafter “the video of this case”), which was collected through CCTV installed for the purpose of theft and fire prevention, to explain the “case of deliberation on the operation of the apartment management body” proposed by the fifth council of occupants’ representatives as of May 23, 2018, and used the same personal information in excess of the scope under Article 15(1) of the Act.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. The Defendant’s act of screening the instant video constitutes “use of personal information” under Article 15(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, and such use constitutes a ground for imposing fines for negligence under Article 75(1)1 of the same Act, and even if there is no separate statutory provision punishing the act of violation, applying Article 71 of the Personal Information Protection Act, which is a penal provision, is contrary to the principle of no punishment without law.

B. The video of this case contains “personal information” as provided by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, because he/she handled the face of C with a capping and deleted the voice and made it impossible to identify who is.