2016Do1905 Lineal Abandonment of Duties, Disclosure of Confidential Information, and Violation of Personal Information Protection Act

A

Defendant

Law Firm (LLC) V

Attorney W, X, Y

Jeju District Court Decision 2016No100 Decided November 10, 2016

September 21, 2017

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal (the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed is supplemental appellate brief)

The grounds are examined to the extent of supplement.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the waiver of duty and leakage of official secrets

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court is so decided as per its holding.

A. On the ground that the Defendant was guilty of neglecting official duties or disclosing official secrets among the facts charged in the instant case

It is justifiable to determine that the court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and that there was reason and experience.

It exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the law, or the criteria for judgment of abandonment of duties.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the relation between the crime and the abandonment of duties, and the disclosure of official secrets.

No error affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that personal information controllers of public institutions investigate and prosecute crimes.

The provisions of Article 18(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act, such as the filing and maintenance of the agenda, if necessary;

use of personal information for any purpose other than the intended purpose, or provide a third party with such information, except as otherwise provided.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant could not be present, on July 22, 2015, worked at the Jeju Western Police Station C.

G by inquiring about the details of the designated number of police terminals provided to the defendant, with a portable police device

The fact that each arrest warrant has been issued by the Seoul Dong-dong District Prosecutors' Office and the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station and has been assigned.

Along with this, the Defendant’s cell phone phone messages “(1) mother” to H using the Defendant’s cell phone messages

Two arrest warrants, 2. For the same receipt, up to 2021 of the statute of limitations, 3. One is from the relevant department of fraud.

In 2019, the statute of limitations was transmitted to "the statute of limitations" and personal information was provided by notifying G of the details, etc.

c.

B. As to the above facts charged, the lower court held that Article 71 subparag. 2 and Article 18(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act

It affirmed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty.

C. However, the court below erred by applying Article 71 subparagraph 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 18 paragraph 2 of the same Article.

The determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) The Personal Information Protection Act is amended in violation of Article 71(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act (Article 18(1) and (2)

section 18(1) provides that a person who uses personal information or provides it to a third party shall be punished.

"Personal information manager" uses personal information beyond the scope under Article 15 (1) or Article 17.

No provision shall be made to a third party beyond the scope under paragraphs (1) and (3) of this Article.

The main sentence of Article 18(2) shall provide that " Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a personal information manager shall:

In any case, the interests of an owner of information or a third party may be unfairly infringed on.

(2) Except as provided for in paragraph (1), the personal information shall be used for any purpose other than the intended purpose or

6.2. The term ".."

In addition, Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the "Personal Information Manager" shall operate personal information files for the purpose of his/her duties.

public institution, corporation, or organization that manages personal information on its own or through another person;

Article 28(1) provides that "the personal information manager shall provide personal information."

In managing personal information safely, officers, employees, temporary agency workers, part-time workers, and part-time workers

For persons who manage personal information under the direction and supervision of personal information managers, such as senior citizens, appropriate

one management and supervision shall be carried out."

(2) In full view of the above statutory provisions and legal principles, Article 18(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act

Paragraph 2 defines "personal information manager" as a medical subject, and the Jeju Western Police at the time of the instant case

the defendant, who was a police official C, was to operate a personal information file for the purpose of his/her duties.

section 2(5) of the Personal Information Protection Act that manages personal information on its own or through another person;

The defendant's act can not be seen as having been in the position of the personal information manager.

section 71(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act, which provides that "personal information manager" is a mandatory subject.

No punishment shall be punished by applying subparagraph, Article 18(2), or Article 18(2).

(3) Accordingly, the Defendant violated Article 71 Subparag. 2 and Article 18(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act.

The judgment of the court below which held that a crime is established shall be the "personal information manager" as provided in the Personal Information Protection Act.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the judgment.

3. Scope of reversal

Of the judgment below, the part of the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act should be reversed, and the same shall be reversed.

Division and the remaining parts found guilty by the court below are concurrent or commercial concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Inasmuch as a single sentence was imposed on the ground that there is a partnership relationship, the judgment below is reversed in its entirety.

required by the corporation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is reversed.

In other words, it is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Jae-chul

Justices Go Young-young

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Kim Jong-il