Defendant 1 and seven others

Freeboard Kim Hero (Lawsuits) and Park Jong-nam (Public Trial)

Attorneys Kim Min-kin et al.

[Defendant 1]

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8]

Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three million won.

In the event that the above defendants did not pay the above fines, the above defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for a period of 10,000 won converted from one day.

1. Defendant 1

No person who has managed or processed personal information shall divulge personal information he/she becomes aware of in the course of performing his/her duties or provide it to another person without authority.

Nevertheless, on May 1, 2006, from around April 31, 2013 to around April 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) retired from the above association on April 31, 2013 as a person who handled the personal information of its members in the course of business; and (b) transferred an X-cell file to the Defendant (e-mail address 1 omitted) e-mail, stating the name, age, vehicle number, mobile phone number, address, etc. of its members.

A. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by providing Defendant 3 with a membership list around April 18, 2013

Around April 18, 2013, the Defendant was keeping X-cell files on the list of members of ○○○○○ Military Cooperative members, and sent an X-cell file to the e-mail account used by Defendant 3 (e-mail address 2 omitted) upon Defendant 3’s request that “it is necessary to use the said list for election of the president of ○○○○ Military Cooperative.”

B. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by providing a membership list to Defendant 6 around May 13, 2013

As above, Defendant 6, who was in custody of X-cell files in the register of members of ○○○○○ taxi members, was working as the head of the business team at the △△△ branch on May 13, 2013, sent an e-mail account (e.g., e-mail address 3 omitted) to Defendant 6, upon the request of the head of the business team at the △△△ branch, who was working for the head of the business team at the △△△ branch.

C. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by providing Defendant 2 with a membership list around November 10, 2013

Around November 10, 2013, the Defendant was keeping X-cell files on the list of members of ○○○○○ taxi association members, and Defendant 2 asked that “it is necessary to conduct an election campaign in order to send the list of members to candidates for the director of the ○○○ taxi transport business association,” and sent the above list of members to the e-mail account used by Defendant 2 (e-mail address 4 omitted).

(d) Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by providing a membership roll to Defendant 4 around November 18, 2013;

On November 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while keeping an X-cell file in the register of members of the ○○○○○ taxi association; (b) sent the above list of members to the e-mail account (e-mail address 5 omitted); (c) from Nonindicted 4, a candidate for the president of the ○○○ taxi association, Nonindicted 3, a candidate for the president of the ○○○ taxi association, at the request of Nonindicted 4, who assisted Nonindicted 3, a candidate for the president of the e-mail association; and (d) sent the above list of members to the e-mail account used by Nonindicted 3, the head of the e-mail office.

E. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by providing a membership roll to Defendant 5 on November 21, 2013

Around November 21, 2013, the Defendant was keeping X-cell files on the list of members of ○○○○ Military Cooperative members, and sent an X-cell file to the e-mail account (e.g., e-mail address 6 omitted) used by Defendant 5 upon Defendant 5’s request to engage in an election campaign for the president of the ○○○○ Military Cooperative.

F. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by providing a membership list to Defendant 7 on January 3, 2014

As above, Defendant 7, who was in custody of an X-cell file in the register of members of ○○○○○ Military Association members, was operating an e-mail charging station in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju ( Address omitted), around January 3, 2014, sent an X-cell file to the e-mail account used by Defendant 7 (e-mail address 7 omitted) upon the request of Defendant 7, stating that “if the list of members of a private taxi exists, it would be helpful to advertise that he would use the charging station run inside the taxi articles.”

Accordingly, the Defendant provided personal information that he/she became aware of in the course of his/her duties six times in total to another person without authority.

2. Defendant 2

A. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act after being provided with a list of members by Defendant 1 around November 10, 2013;

On November 10, 2013, Defendant 1 knew that Defendant 1 had custody of X-cell files on the list of members of ○○○○ taxi association members, and requested Defendant 1 to send a list of members to the e-mail account (e.g., e., e-mail address 4 omitted) that Defendant 1 used by Defendant 1 to engage in an election campaign to send to candidates for directors of the ○○○ taxi transport business association.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 was provided with personal information for profit or for an unlawful purpose with knowledge that he did not have the right to use personal information that he learned in the course of his duties.

B. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by providing a membership list to Defendant 8 on November 11, 2013

No person who receives personal information from a personal information manager shall use such personal information for any purpose other than the intended purpose of receiving it or provide it to a third party.

Nevertheless, on November 11, 2013, the Defendant, like the above A, provided that he was provided with a list of union members by Defendant 1, as seen in the above A, and asked Defendant 8, who was the chief director of the private taxi transport association, to “I have received a list of union members from Defendant 1, who was the main day, and sent the main day to Defendant 1,” and told Defendant 8 that “I will inform his wife (Defendant 8’s wife Nonindicted 5) of the main address, and send a file to the main day known by his wife.”

Accordingly, the Defendant sent the above list of union members to the e-mail account of Defendant 8’s wife Nonindicted 5 (e-mail address 8 omitted) (E-mail address 8 omitted) by Defendant 1.

3. Defendant 3

On April 18, 2013, Defendant 1 knew that Defendant 1 had custody of X-cell files in the list of union members of ○○○○ Military Cooperative members, and requested Defendant 1 to send a list of union members to the e-mail account (e.g., e-mail address 2 omitted) that Defendant 1 had used for the election of the president of the ○○○○ Military Credit Union.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 was provided with personal information for profit or for an unlawful purpose with knowledge that he did not have the right to use personal information that he learned in the course of his duties.

4. Defendant 6

On May 13, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while working as the head of the business team at △△△△ Branch; (b) knew that Defendant 1 was in custody of the list of members of ○○○○○ taxi members; (c) requested that Defendant 1 send a list of members because “if there is a list of individual taxi members, he would be SSing to taxi articles or would assist in engaging in business activities; and (d) received transmission of the said list of members from Defendant 1 to the e-mail account (e-mail address 3 omitted); and (c) received the said list of members from Defendant 1.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 was provided with personal information for profit or for an unlawful purpose with knowledge that he did not have the right to use personal information that he learned in the course of his duties.

5. Defendant 4

On November 2013, the Defendant was aware that Defendant 1 had been in the custody of X-cell files in the register of members of the said association as the chief secretary of the general affairs of the former ○○○○ taxi association while working as the chief secretary of the election affairs office of Nonindicted Party 3 of the candidate for the president of the president of the relevant private taxi

While assisting the above non-indicted 3 in the election campaign, the defendant heard from non-indicted 4 that "if there are up-to-date contact numbers of the union members, it will help to carry out the election campaign", and the non-indicted 4 asked for the latest contact numbers of the union members.

Accordingly, around November 18, 2013, Non-Indicted 4 sent the above list of union members to Defendant 1’s e-mail address (e-mail address 5 omitted) or Defendant’s e-mail address (e-mail address 5 omitted). On the other hand, Non-Indicted 4 requested Defendant 1 to send the above e-mail address as necessary for the union election campaign, thereby allowing Defendant 1 to send the above list of union members X-cell file to Defendant’s e-mail address.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 was provided with personal information for profit or for an unlawful purpose with knowledge that he did not have the right to use personal information that he learned in the course of his duties.

6. Defendant 5

On November 21, 2013, Defendant 1 knew that Defendant 1 had custody of X-cell files on the list of members of ○○○○ Military Cooperative members, and upon Defendant 1’s request, sent a list of members as he deems necessary to conduct an election campaign for the president of the ○○○ Military Cooperative, which is in the front, to Defendant 1, and received transmission of X-cell files on the e-mail account (e-mail address 6 omitted) that Defendant used.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 was provided with personal information for profit or for an unlawful purpose with knowledge that he did not have the right to use personal information that he learned in the course of his duties.

7. Defendant 7

On January 3, 2014, Defendant 1 knew that Defendant 1 had custody of X-cell files on the register of members of ○○○○ taxi association members in Seo-gu ( Address omitted) and requested Defendant 1 to send the same list of members to the taxi article that “if there is a list of individual taxi association members, it would be helpful to advertise that he/she would use a charging station operated by him/her to the taxi article.” As such, Defendant received transmission of X-cell files on the e-mail account (e-mail address 7 omitted) used by Defendant.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 was provided with personal information for profit or for an unlawful purpose with knowledge that he did not have the right to use personal information that he learned in the course of his duties.

8. Defendant 8

On November 11, 2013, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2, “A list of members was received from Defendant 1 as a mail, and sent as a mail,” and Defendant 2 told Defendant 2 that “A mail address is known to the wife (Nonindicted 5 of the Defendant’s wife) and a file is sent as a mail to be known by the wife.”

Accordingly, the Defendant received from Defendant 2 an X-cell file in the e-mail account of Nonindicted 5’s wife (e-mail address 8 omitted) from Defendant 2.

Accordingly, Defendant 2 received personal information with knowledge that he did not have the right to use personal information provided by Defendant 1 to another person for profit or unjust purpose.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 6 and the defendant 8

1. Statement made by the police on Nonindicted 6

1. The details of the receipt of letters from the union members, the information disclosure of union members, the screen of the closure of the suspect 7-day account, the list of the union members, the suspect 41 statement of Defendant 1, Defendant 7, etc. 41, Defendant 4, etc., Defendant 6, Defendant 2’s e-mail delivery details, Defendant 2’s e-mail delivery details, Defendant 5’s e-mail delivery details, attachment, Defendant 8-mail delivery details, Defendant 8-mail reception and confirmation of Defendant 2’s reception and confirmation of Defendant 2 e-mail, respectively.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendants: Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 59 Subparag. 2)

1. Selection of punishment;

In consideration of the quantity of leaked personal information and the number of leaked personal information, each of the fines shall be imposed on Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

[Defendant 8 asserts that Article 71 subparag. 5 and Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act can only be applied to a person who has processed personal information and received personal information directly with the knowledge of the fact. However, since Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act states that “a person who has received personal information for profit or for an illegal purpose despite the knowledge of the circumstance,” and does not specify the subject of the provision of personal information, it is reasonable to interpret that even if a person who received personal information knowingly received personal information to a third party without consent, such case constitutes a violation of Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act. Thus, the above defendant’s assertion is rejected.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Nam-il

(1) The prosecutor had the applicable provisions of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Personal Information under Article 71 subparagraph 2 and Article 19 of the Personal Information Protection Act around the charges of Defendant 8, but this constitutes a case where the facts charged are identical and legal assessment is different, and thus the judgment on such case should not be separately made.