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

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

Punishment of the crime

Based on the applicable legal provisions (Article 59(3) of the Personal Information Protection Act), the expression of facts charged is rhyd.

No person who manages or has processed personal information shall damage, destroy, alter, forge, or leak any third person's personal information without due authority or beyond the permitted authority.

The Defendant, from January 26, 2010 to October 15, 2014, was in charge of debt collection business in B, a non-performing loan recovery company.

On October 15, 2014, the Defendant, at the above company office located on the seventh floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, retired from office and did not delete any file containing another person’s personal information, such as the name and resident registration number of 233 debtors stored in the Defendant’s personal USB while retiring, and leaked another person’s personal information without due authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of D and E;

1. A written accusation;

1. Computerization, photographs, documents leakage of debtor information, claims collection entrustment contracts, personal information protection pledges, security and compliance protocols, and code of ethics;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigative report (No. 10 of the evidence list);

1. Article 71 Subparag. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 59 Subparag. 3 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [Article 334(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (amended by the Seoul Central District Court 2015Da5305682) provides that the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not delete any information contained in the individual USB prior to the enforcement of the Personal Information Protection Act, and only submit it as evidence in the relevant civil litigation case against the company (Seoul Central District Court 2015Da5305682). Thus, the defendant did not intend to leak his/her personal information as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. However, the defendant's and his/her defense counsel received personal information from