logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.09.18 2014고정776
개인정보보호법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No current or former employee of a public institution engaging in the management of personal information in this case or any person who engages or has engaged in the management of such information upon entrustment by a public institution shall divulge, process without authority, or provide such information to any third person for any other wrongful purpose;

The Defendant was a person working as the director of the Dong-dong Labor Welfare Corporation Vice-Governor C on June 24, 2013. On June 24, 2013, the Defendant divulged the victim’s personal information by informing the victim F’s address and contact address immediately at the request of the owner E of the building in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service office located on the 14th floor of the building in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Seoul, 7-25 Round Office.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as at the time he was found in the office of Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, E only has prevented him from reporting the F’s address at the time of the document, and that he did not inform E of F’s contact address, and that he is presumed to have read the F’s employment insurance policy establishment report on the book between B and B for copying the document without permission.

On the other hand, as evidence that the defendant had known the F's address and contact address to E and there are statements in E and in this court, the police officer stated that "E knows the F's accurate address to the defendant and entered his office address and telephone number in F in F series at the end, with documents prepared by the defendant, and entered them in F in F series at the end of the time, and the document was not allowed to be taken off because the defendant did not wear an internal seat at the time." However, in this court, the defendant asked F's address and telephone number, and then the defendant was not the defendant.

arrow