logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.07.19 2018고정443
개인정보보호법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No personal information shall be provided by a person who knows that the data processing entity has not obtained consent from the data processing entity.

In order to submit as evidence of criminal cases that the Defendant was assaulted by his spouse C residing together in Gwangju Mine-gu, the Defendant leased a building located in Gwangju Mine-gu D from the above C and operated the "E Deputy Secretary".

F has installed CCTVs in the above Sejong Deputy Director, and he became aware that CCTVs were exposed to the above C's residence, and requested F to have the right to access CCTVs.

On February 2, 2017, the Defendant received from F the ID and password that allows access to the CCTV even though he/she knew that the said F did not obtain the consent of C, a data subject, from the third Deputy Commissioner, around February 2017, the Defendant provided personal information of the data subject.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Complaint;

1. A copy of a recording book (the Gwangju District Court 2017 Gohap 396);

1. Investigation report (verification of the location of CCTV installed by the Deputy Director);

1. The Vice Chief of Staff of each E;

1. Application of CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 71 subparagraph 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 17 (1) 1 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information and Selection of Fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant and his defense counsel shall assert that the CCTV images provided by F are not personal information prescribed by the Personal Information Protection Act because it is difficult to distinguish them from others.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as "Personal Information Protection Act") provides information on a living person with which the person can be identified by his/her name, resident registration number, image, etc. (the relevant information alone is not enough to identify a specific person).

arrow