Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

The decoration, subordinate finance (public trial)

Attorney Jeong Jin-jin

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Ra2134 Decided January 13, 2015

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The name and telephone number of Nonindicted 2 constituted “personal information” under the Personal Information Protection Act, and the written consent for dismissal of this case constitutes “personal information files” under the Personal Information Protection Act, which are arranged in order by 34 occupants of apartment buildings, including Nonindicted 2, including Nonindicted 2, and thus fall under “personal information files” under the Personal Information Protection Act. Defendant 2 was requested by the chairperson of the apartment election management committee to examine the legality of the request for dismissal of the representatives of each building. As long as Defendant 2 received and kept the written consent for dismissal of each building, the written consent for dismissal of this case was received. As long as Defendant 2 received and kept the written consent for dismissal of this case, which is the personal information files, the person who operated the personal information files for business purposes, notwithstanding the fact-finding or personal information manager under the Personal Information Protection Act, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged.

2. Determination

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201).

Based on the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below is justified in the judgment below that the defendants 2 did not constitute "personal information manager" as provided by Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act, and since the defendants 2 are or was in the personal information manager's position, it cannot be deemed that the defendants' act constitutes an element of violation of Article 71 subparagraph 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act (However, Article 75 subparagraph 5 of the judgment below is erroneous) and Article 59 subparagraph 2 of the same Act which punishs the defendants' act of disclosing personal information of a person who managed or processed personal information as stated in the facts charged of this case, since the facts charged of this case against the defendants do not constitute a crime or there is no proof of a crime, since there is no new evidence to prove the facts charged of this case in the court below, the prosecutor's allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all appeals filed by the prosecutor against the defendants are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (However, among the judgment below, it is clear that the "Article 75 subparag. 5" and "Article 75 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act" of No. 4, No. 8, and No. 75 of the Criminal Procedure Act are erroneous statements of each "Article 71 subparag. 5", and therefore, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Judges Hong Pung-chul (Presiding Judge)