logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.08.22 2018고정1425
개인정보보호법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On April 25, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of extortion at the Jung-gu District Court on August 25, 2018, and the judgment was finalized on August 12, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

No one shall be knowingly provided with personal information for any illegal purpose by any person who manages or has processed such information without authority that he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, even though he did not agree to provide the contact information to the Defendant from August 9 to April 2017, received personal information without permission by acquiring documents containing the name of 116 members of the said association and the mobile phone number, from an unexponed person who did not have the right to provide the information of the said association, for the purpose of using them as a means of threatening the chairman of the promotion committee of the said association or the executive agency to pressure the side of the said association due to the following personal problems:

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Letters and photographs sent by the suspect to the members of the association, and documents that the suspect has received from the wounded;

1. Records of judgment: Criminal history records, penology records, previous records of disposition, results of confirmation, and the defendant and defense counsel asserts that the defendant does not receive personal information for any wrongful purpose;

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant is in charge of the Chairperson of Emergency Measures in connection with the reconstruction of B-house, and the Defendant was in conflict with the executor’s company while engaging in one-person demonstration in relation to the sale of B-house housing association, and ② the Defendant stated the name of the union members and the mobile phone number from the name unsatisfyer who is the union members among the one-person demonstration.

arrow