2018Do13694 Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, promotion of the use of information and communications networks, and information protection

Article 6 (Leakage of Personal Information, etc.)

A Stock Company

Prosecutor

Attorney B, C, D, E, F

Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13263 Decided April 7, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017No1296 Decided August 16, 2018

July 25, 2019

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, deemed that the amount equivalent to the amount the Defendant received from the insurance company regarding the acquisition and provision of personal information stated in the instant facts charged cannot be subject to additional collection as prescribed in Article 48 of the Criminal Act, and did not sentence the Defendant to additionally collect the amount. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed to the entire part of the judgment below against the defendant, but did not state specific grounds for objection on the guilty part in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hwan of the District Court