logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.07.18 2012고정3240
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(정보통신망침해등)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of Liucom Company.

No one shall knowingly receive any divulged personal information for profit or for any other wrongful purpose.

On March 201, the Defendant purchased personal information at the D Company's office located in Suwon-gu, Daegu-si, and searched personal information sellers using the Internet to investigate the satisfaction of the company's products with residents.

At around 12:00 of the same month, the Defendant transferred KRW 1,00,000 from the Defendant’s account to the “F” account of the said e-mail ID used by the Defendant, and received KRW 9,517,134 personal information from the Defendant’s account at around 16th of the same month.

Accordingly, the defendant was knowingly provided with personal information divulged to others for profit or for an unlawful purpose.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Investigation report (referring to opinion meetings with respect to the sale of life and telephone number copies of the Korean telephone board), investigation report (related to the sample screen of the suspect's personal information transaction);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning details of transactions;

1. Article 71 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. and Articles 71 and 28-2 (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Punishment concerning Criminal Facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As long as the above summary order did not confiscate the seized articles from the defendant, and only the defendant requested a formal trial against the above summary order, the above summary order shall not be sentenced to the confiscation of the seized articles in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

arrow