Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Promotion

Attorney Park Sung-sung et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2003 High Court Decision 3875, 2003 High Court Decision 67 decided August 8, 2003

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

When Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting the amount of 40,000 won into one day: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be one day.

In regard to Defendant 2, 24 days of detention before the judgment of the court below is made shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

A sentence of punishment shall be suspended against Defendant 3 Stock Company.

Defendant 2 shall order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s violation of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act due to the collection and investigation of uncertain personal credit information among the facts charged against them, and Defendant 1 is acquitted, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Defendants

With regard to paragraph (1) of the facts charged, the court below found Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 guilty on the ground that the information collected and investigated by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is personal information as a member of the Internet site, including “Nonindicted Co. 4” and “Nonindicted Co. 5,” and that it is unclear whether the identity, name, resident registration number, etc. of the member is still uncertain and that it does not in itself lead to the determination of whether the card was issued (credit card name omitted) and whether the credit card was overdue, etc., but first of all, it cannot be said that all member information of the Internet site is uncertain and there is no objective evidence supporting this, and that the credit information collected and investigated by the above Defendants 3 was overdue, and thus, it cannot be readily determined that the information collected and investigated by the above Defendants cannot be proven to be uncertain, and thus, the court below found Defendant 3 guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”).

(2) Defendants 2 and 3

In addition, the court below found Defendant 2 guilty of the facts charged as to Article 4 of the Act, but the provision of information is allowed because Defendant 2's act constitutes Article 27 (2) 1 of the Credit Information Act, and the above provision of the Act constitutes an exception to the elements of this part of the facts charged pursuant to Article 24 (1) 5 of the proviso of Article 24 (1) of the same Act, and thus constitutes an unlawful act by misapprehending legal principles that the court below erred and sentenced Defendant 2

(3) Defendant 3 corporation

In addition, even if Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are found guilty of the entire facts charged, Defendant 2’s act is not related to Defendant 3’s business, and thus, Defendant 3’s criminal liability cannot be imposed.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Preliminaryly, even if all defendants are found guilty, the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the grounds of appeal as to the facts charged under paragraph (1)

(1) Composition elements

Article 32(2)4 of the Credit Information Act provides that a person who violates Article 15 of the same Act shall be punished, and Article 15(1)4 of the same Act provides that “operator of credit information business, etc. shall not collect and investigate any uncertain personal credit information.”

(2) REPOE. - Credit Information dealers, etc.

Article 13 of the Credit Information Act provides that credit information dealers, credit information collection agencies, credit information providers, and users are all credit information dealers. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. is acknowledged as being a specialized credit information company by specialized credit financial business crimes, since it acquires a non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. from around 2001 to change its trade name. Thus, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 1 is a credit information provider/user under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Credit Information Act and Article 2(2)15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Act. Further, Defendant 3 Co., Ltd., the representative director of which is Defendant 1, can be acknowledged as being a company established around August 202 as a company for credit card agency business and worker dispatch business and four regular employees. Thus, it can be recognized as falling under the credit information provider/user under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Credit Information Act, Article 2(2)27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 2(5)1) of the Framework Act, Article 2 of the Framework Act, Article 3 subparag.

(3) EFIED. - An uncertain personal credit information

㈎ 위 구성요건상 행위의 대상은 우선 신용정보이어야 하는바, 신용정보법 제2조 제1호 는 ‘신용정보라 함은 금융거래등 상거래에 있어서 거래상대방에 대한 식별·신용도·신용거래능력등의 판단을 위하여 필요로 하는 정보로서 대통령령이 정하는 정보를 말한다’고 규정하고, 신용정보는 다시 같은 법 시행령 제2조 제1항 제1호 내지 제3호 에 의하면 ‘1. 개인의 성명·주소·주민등록번호(외국인의 경우 외국인등록번호 또는 여권번호)·성별·국적 및 직업 등과 기업 및 법인의 상호·법인등록번호·사업자등록번호·본점 및 영업소의 소재지·설립연월일·목적 및 임원에 관한 사항 등 특정 신용정보주체를 식별할 수 있는 정보’(이하 ‘식별정보’라 한다), ‘2. 대출·보증·담보제공·가계당좌예금 또는 당좌예금·신용카드·할부금융·시설대여 등의 금융거래 등 상거래와 관련하여 신용정보주체의 거래내용을 판단할 수 있는 정보로서 재정경제부령이 정하는 정보’(이하 ‘거래내용정보’라 한다), ‘3. 금융거래 등 상거래와 관련하여 발생한 연체·부도·대지급 또는 허위 기타 부정한 방법에 의한 신용질서 문란행위 등 신용정보주체의 신용도를 판단할 수 있는 정보로서 재정경제부령이 정하는 정보’(이하 ‘신용능력정보’라 한다) 등으로 구분될 수 있으며(이 사건과 관련이 없는 제3호 내지 제6호 는 언급하지 아니한다), 다시 같은 법 시행규칙 제2조 제1항 은 ‘ 영 제2조 제1항 제2호 (위 거래내용정보)에서 “재정경제부령이 정하는 정보"라 함은 거래의 종류, 거래당사자의 성명 또는 상호, 거래의 기간·금액 및 한도 등을 말한다’고 규정하고, 제2항 은 ‘ 영 제2조 제1항 제3호 (신용능력정보)에서 "재정경제부령이 정하는 정보"라 함은 거래의 종류, 거래당사자의 성명 또는 상호, 연체·부도·대지급 등의 금액과 발생·해소 등의 시기를 말한다’고 규정하고 있다.

However, Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Act provides that "personal information shall have its own meaning as a credit information only where it is combined with transaction details or credit ability information." Thus, "information that can be determined in combination with an individual's name, address, resident registration number, gender, nationality, occupation, etc. in connection with commercial transactions, such as financial transactions, the name or trade name of a transaction party, and the period, amount, and limit of transaction," or "information that is a material that may determine credit rating of an owner of credit information, such as acts of interference with credit order by late payment, late payment, substitute payment, or false or other unlawful means in connection with commercial transactions such as financial transactions, etc." can be deemed as "information that combines the individual's name, address, resident registration number, sex, nationality, occupation, etc. of an individual."

㈏ 또한, 위 구성요건상 행위대상은 개인신용정보로 제한되고 있는데, 이에 대하여는 법령상 정의규정이 없고( 신용정보법 제23조 에서 ‘개인신용정보’를 따로 정의하고 있으나 이는 조문의 편별상 당해 장에만 해당하는 것으로 보인다), 신용정보를 정의한 위 규정들을 볼 때 개인정보는 기업 및 법인의 정보와는 구별되는 자연인의 정보라고 봄이 상당하다.

㈐ 다음으로, 수집·조사가 금지되는 ‘불확실한’ 정보는 확실한 정보에 반대되는 개념으로서 앞서 본 신용정보의 정의 및 신용정보법의 목적과 연관하여 볼 때 ‘식별정보와 결합된 거래내용정보 혹은 신용능력정보가 진실인지에 관하여 의문이 있는 정보’라고 할 것이다.

(4) CABE. - Collection and investigation of uncertain personal credit information

This refers to any act of gathering or analyzing uncertain personal credit information with a view to obtaining a certain result. As such, the result of such an act is bound to be an uncertain personal credit information, and thus, it seems that it is prohibited in light of the purpose of the Credit Protection Act to prevent unfair infringement of personal credit due to the misuse or abuse of credit information, thereby establishing a sound credit order.

(5) Determination

In the instant case, according to the evidence examined and adopted by the lower court, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s act is identified as to whether the relevant individual was issued (name omitted) card through search by linking with the database in which the information of credit card holders stored in the card company’s computer was entered, and whether the credit card amount was overdue or bad credit holders (credit information). Based on the result, the act of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 was intended to recommend and induce the issuance of (name omitted) card by telephone against those who did not obtain the (name omitted) card and whose credit rating is good, by using the name, address, resident registration number, etc. (identification information) of an individual who was admitted to the Internet light, as a member.

㈎ 앞서 본 바와 같이 식별정보 자체는 신용정보가 아니고, 식별정보와 결합된 거래내용정보 혹은 신용능력정보가 신용정보에 해당하므로, 피고인 2가 피고인 1로부터 단순히 식별정보 사항에 관련된 인터넷 회원정보(회원에 관한 다른 정보는 신용정보와는 다소 거리가 멀다)를 넘겨받은 행위가 신용정보수집행위에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없고, 다만 위 인터넷 회원정보를 회사컴퓨터의 데이터베이스에 저장된 신용카드회원정보와 비교하여 신용카드발급 여부 등을 알아본 것이 불확실한 신용정보를 수집·조사한 행위가 되는지가 문제가 된다고 할 것이다.

㈏ 먼저, 피고인 회사의 컴퓨터에 저장되어 있는 특정인의 신용카드 발급내역 혹은 신용카드 사용대금 연체내역 등은 피고인 회사가 업무를 통하여 직접 수집, 정리한 정보이므로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 내용이 진실인지에 대하여 의문이 있는 불확실한 정보에 해당한다고 보기는 어렵다.

㈐ 다만, 설령 피고인 회사의 신용카드회원이 가입시에 허위의 식별정보(타인이나 허무인의 정보나 이러한 것이 결합된 정보)를 기재하여 신용카드를 발급받을 수 있는 가능성 및 인터넷 회원 가입시에 허위의 식별정보를 이용하여 회원에 가입할 가능성을 완전히 배제할 수는 없지만, 그러한 가능성이 있다는 이유만으로 모든 회원들의 정보가 불확실한 것이라고 단정하기 어렵고, 피고인 회사에 저장된 신용카드회원과 피고인 1이 제공한 인터넷 회원과의 식별정보를 비교함으로써 오히려 의문이 있는 정보들이 배제될 가능성도 있다.

(6) Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Credit Information Act, which found the Defendants guilty of this part of the charges, and the Defendants’ appeal pointing this out is with merit.

B. Determination on the grounds of appeal as to the facts charged under paragraph (4)

In the first instance, the prosecutor applied for the change of this part of the facts charged against Defendants 2 and 3 as well as the contents of the indictment to change the applicable provisions of the Acts to them, and the object of the trial was partially changed by the party members, so the judgment of the court below as to this part of the grounds for appeal can no longer be maintained without the need to judge the grounds for appeal in this part. However, since there are circumstances in which the defendants' defense counsel appears to have changed the facts charged prior to the change of the facts charged, the court below's judgment as to this part

(1) In light of the purport or content of the relevant provisions of the Credit Information Act, unlike personal credit information related to Article 23(1) of the same Act, the personal credit information referred to in a violation of Article 23 and Article 24(1) of the same Act, “personal information to identify an individual, such as name, address, resident registration number (in the case of a foreigner, a foreigner or a passport number), gender, nationality, occupation, etc., of the individual” (Article 23 subparag. 3) has an independent meaning as personal credit information without combining personally identifiable information with transaction information or credit ability information, unlike personal credit information related to Article 23(1) of the same Act. In addition, the personal credit information should, in principle, be provided and used with written consent from the relevant owner of credit information, and in principle, it should be provided and used for the purpose of determining whether financial transactions, etc. with the relevant owner of credit information is established and maintained, and it is prohibited

(2) Determination on the grounds for appeal

㈎ 피고인들은 신용정보법 제24조 제1항 단서 각 호 에 해당하는 경우에는 제1항 본문의 목적에 따르지 아니한 경우라도 신용정보 제공·이용이 허용되는데 그 중 제5호 의 ‘기타 다른 법률의 규정에 의하여 제공·이용되는 경우’에는 같은 법 제27조 제2항 제1호 도 포함되고, 피고인들의 공소사실 제4항의 행위가 이에 해당하여 공소사실 제4항은 구성요건에 해당하지 아니한다는 취지로 주장한다.

㈏ 원심이 적법하게 조사, 채택한 증거에 의하면, 피고인 3 주식회사의 직원인 피고인 2는 공소외 3 주식회사 대표이사인 피고인 1로부터 (카드명 생략)카드 가맹점 업주 중 (카드명 생략)카드를 발급받지 않은 자들을 상대로 신용카드회원을 모집활동을 하려하니 도움을 달라는 부탁을 받고 (카드명 생략)카드 가맹점 업주 1백만 여명의 식별정보 등이 담긴 CD-ROM을 제공한 사실, (카드명 생략)카드와 공소외 3 주식회사 사이에 체결된 신용카드회원 모집대리점 계약에 의하면 공소외 3 주식회사가 회원 유치업무를 대행함에 있어서 신용카드 모집으로 인하여 취득한 제반정보를 계약에서 정한 목적 이외의 용도로 이용하여서는 아니 되고, 업무수행 중 알게 된 (카드명 생략)카드의 회원정보 및 거래내용을 제3자에게 누설하지 못하도록 규정(제6조)되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㈐ 우선, 신용정보법 제24조 제1항 단서 제5호 에서 규정하는 ‘기타 다른 법률의 규정’이 신용정보법 제27조 제2항 을 지칭하지 아니함은 그 규정의 취지나 내용, 규정형식 등에 비추어 보아도 명확하다( 신용정보법 제32조 제2항 은 제7호 에서 같은 법 제24조 제1항 의 규정을 위반한 자를 처벌하는 규정을 두고 있는 것과 별도로 제9호 에서 제27호 의 규정을 위반한 자를 처벌하는 규정을 두고 있다).

㈑ 한편, 신용정보법 제23조 (개인신용정보의 제공·활용에 대한 동의), 제24조 (개인신용정보의 제공·이용의 제한 및 통보), 제25조 (신용정보의 열람 및 정정청구 등), 제26조 (신용정보업자 등의 금지사항)의 규정취지와 내용, 신용정보법의 목적 등을 종합하여 보면, 당해 개인의 서면동의도 필요 없는 당해 신용정보주체와의 금융거래 등 상거래관계의 설정 및 유지 여부 등의 판단목적이란 당해 신용정보주체가 금융거래 등의 설정·유지를 위하여 자신의 신용정보를 제공한 때의 목적이나 그와 밀접한 관련이 있는 것으로 여겨지는 것에 한정된다고 할 것이다.

In the instant case, since the owner of credit information (credit card name omitted) credit card member stores offered his personal credit information to Defendant 3 Company to establish and maintain the relationship between the credit card company and the merchant through a merchant agreement, the credit information of the said owner is to be used only to the extent that it is closely related to such relationship and purpose. Moreover, soliciting other credit card dealers to issue a credit card against the said owner is to establish a new financial relationship beyond the original purpose and it is not permissible unless there is a written consent of the relevant owner of credit information. Therefore, Defendant 2’s provision of personal credit information to Defendant 1, who is a credit card solicitor, for the purpose of aiding to establish a new financial relationship constitutes a violation of Article 23 of the Credit Information Act.

㈒ 따라서 피고인 2, 피고인 3 주식회사의 이 부분 항소 논지는 어느 모로 보아도 모두 그 이유가 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as seen earlier, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without any need to decide on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the Defendants, and the following is again decided through pleading.

Defendant 2 is a person who has worked as a credit card promotion team agent, and Defendant 3 is a corporation established for the purpose of credit card business, etc.;

1. Defendant 2, at the office of Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. at the end of December 2002, at the end of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number omitted), provided to Defendant 1, who is engaged in the credit card recruitment agency business with the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 3 Co., Ltd. without obtaining written consent from the relevant individual, and without obtaining a written consent from the relevant individual, Chapter 2 of the time when credit information such as the (name omitted) name, resident registration number, address, telephone number, franchise store name, and business number, including Nonindicted Co. 4 (resident registration number omitted).

2. Defendant 3 Co., Ltd.: Defendant 2, an employee of the Defendant, committed the above act in relation to the recruitment of credit card members by Defendant Company.

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below in the trial records of the court below

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment among the interrogation protocol of Defendants 1 and 2 prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Statement to the effect that a CD-ROM has been seized as shown in each protocol of seizure prepared by the judicial police assistant;

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

(a) Defendant 2: Article 32 (2) 6 and Article 23 (Selection of Fine) of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act;

(b) Defendant 3 corporation: Articles 34, 32(2)6, and 23 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act;

1. Determination of punishment: 10,000,000 won by fine for defendant 2, and fine for negligence for defendant 3,000,000 won by fine;

1. Attraction in a workhouse (Defendant 2): Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Days days of pre-trial detention (Defendant 2): Article 57 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of sentence (Defendant 3 Company): Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the form of violation of this case by Defendant 2, and the degree of infringement of legal interest arising therefrom cannot be deemed to be somewhat weak. It is reasonable to hold Defendant 3 Company liable with severe liability in that the above Defendant committed a violation in connection with solicitation of credit card holders, who are the business of the company. Also, in light of the current society situation of our society where there exists a risk of infringement of privacy and personality due to the development of information and communication technology, it is strong social demand to punish the above act strictly. However, in the case of Defendant 3 Company, this case appears to have occurred in the process of acquisition and normalization of the non-performing credit card company as the follow-up credit card company, and it is deemed that there is a serious loss of expectation interest if it is difficult to enter the new business area, and that it is too harsh to impose such risk, and thus, it should be determined that the above act is not only a credit card company member, but also a credit card company member, but also a credit card company member of the company, and other members of the company.

1. Provisional payment order (Defendant 2): Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. Facts charged;

Defendant 1 is a person who is engaged in the credit card invitation agency business with the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 3; Defendant 2 is a person who was working as a sales promotion team agent for (credit card name omitted); Defendant 3 is a corporation established for the purpose of credit card business;

A. In collusion with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, Defendant 1, in order for Defendant 1 to facilitate the solicitation of members of the said card in the invitation of members of the said card (name omitted), Defendant 2 had an uncertain personal credit information secured by the said Defendant 1 through the computer network of Defendant 3, on which Defendant 2 works, to conduct a credit investigation;

(1) On September 2002, Defendant 2 collected and investigated the personal credit information, such as whether the credit card of the said member was overdue, whether the said member was in arrears, and whether the (name omitted) card was in possession of the said member’s personal credit information using the aforementioned Defendant 2’s computer, and whether Defendant 2 collected and investigated the personal credit information in the office of the head office of the Defendant 3 corporation located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (number omitted) and the office of the head office of the Defendant 2, including 660,517 members of the “Non-Indicted 4 Co., Ltd.”, and Defendant 2 received from Defendant 1, by means of using the aforementioned Defendant 2’

(2) At the same place as of January 2003, Defendant 2 collected and investigated the personal credit information of its members in the manner described in the foregoing paragraph (1) around that time, after having obtained a copy from the above Defendant 1, a DNA where there is 250,00 members of Nonindicted Co. 5’s Co., Ltd.:

B. Defendant 3 Co., Ltd.: Defendant 2, an employee of the Defendant, committed the above act in relation to the recruitment of credit card members by Defendant Company.

2. Determination

This is a case that does not constitute a crime or does not have proof of a crime, as seen in the judgment (2.b.) on the grounds of appeal, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act to sentence the Defendants not guilty of this part.

Judges Kim Jae-in (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-young