Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates the Internet B AC (D) and manages the personal information of members.

On August 12, 2015, at around 01:40, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s residence located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu E building F, provided the above data to the employees in charge of female family division without obtaining consent from the subject of personal information, such as G, etc. while keeping personal information included in the attached list, such as G, and contact information, as in the attached list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant provided personal information to a third party without the consent of the subject of information.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that the file output of the membership list and the mail contents (the mail demanding members to jointly use personal information) [the defendant's response] is not a crime for the public interest since he provided members' information at the request of a female family member's father to investigate the actual status of damage caused by marriage brokerage.

However, there may be cases where the victims do not want to inform the victims of their damage or their personal information in a place other than the counseling counterpart, and in such a case, it cannot be said that the fact-finding survey is more important than the rights of the victims who want to not disclose the damage (the privacy and freedom).

Since the assistant public officials of female families who conduct fact-finding surveys pursuant to the Act and subordinate statutes also requested the defendant to obtain consent to the provision of personal information, the defendant could have known that the defendant was not required to sacrifice personal information for the public interest of fact-finding surveys.

However, there is no evidence to confirm whether consent has been given and to exclude it from the list.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that it is not a crime for the public interest is rejected.

The defendant.