The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not know that the Defendant did not consent to the victim D, a subject of information.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the director of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Management Office, and the defendant is the person who was the representative of the occupant of the above apartment.

No one shall be provided with personal information with knowledge of the fact that such information is provided without consent of a subject of information.

Nevertheless, on April 23, 2018, the Defendant submitted a “request for access to personal information and a written oath” under the name of ascertaining the status of the management office to B, who is the head of the above apartment management office, and received from B the CCTV video data inside the apartment management office (hereinafter “the instant video data”) around March 5, 2018, which is personal information including the images of the victim, even though he/she was aware that he/she did not obtain the consent of the victim D.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. The court below stated that D’s decision was naturally known to the effect that D himself would not consent to the disclosure of the instant video data in the court below’s decision, but there is no evidence to support that D’s opinion or conical statement was merely merely a D’s opinion or conical statement, and that the Defendant knew that D’s consent was not obtained at the time of receiving the instant video data from B.

On the other hand, according to the following circumstances that can be recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, the subject subject to consent to the provision of personal information by D is a personal information controller B, and that B did not notify the Defendant that he did not obtain the consent of D while providing the video data of this case to the Defendant, and the staff of other management offices are the Defendant.