If a person who manages or used personal information discloses personal information that he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties or provides personal information for use by another person without authority, then the person who received such personal information for profit or unjust purposes constitutes “a person who received such personal information” under Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act even if he/she was not directly provided with such

Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that “No person who manages or has processed personal information shall divulge or provide other persons with no authority to use such personal information, which comes to his/her knowledge in the course of performing his/her duties.” Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that “a person who discloses or provides other persons with no authority to use such information, in violation of Article 59 Subparag. 2, and a person who knowingly receives such personal information for profit or for any other wrongful purpose.”

As seen above, the latter part of Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act stipulates that a person who knowingly receives personal information for profit or for an illegal purpose shall be punished, and there is no restriction on who provides personal information, and considering the legislative purpose of the Personal Information Protection Act, if a person who manages or was engaged in the management of personal information knowingly divulges personal information that he/she knew in the course of performing his/her duties or provides such information to another person without authority, even if he/she is not provided with personal information directly by a person who manages or was in charge of the management of personal information, such person constitutes “person who receives personal information” under Article 71 subparag. 5

Article 1, Article 59 Subparag. 2, and Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2014No3113 Decided October 13, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that “No person who manages or has managed personal information shall divulge personal information that he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties or provide it to another person without authority.” Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that “a person who divulges or provides it to another person without authority, in violation of Article 59 Subparag. 2, and a person who knowingly receives such personal information for profit or for any other wrongful purpose, shall be punished.”

As seen above, the latter part of Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act stipulates that a person who knowingly receives personal information for profit or for an illegal purpose shall be punished, and there is no restriction on who provides personal information, and considering the legislative purpose of the Personal Information Protection Act, if a person who manages or was engaged in the management of personal information knowingly divulges personal information he/she knew of his/her duties or provides personal information to another person without authority, he/she constitutes a “person who receives personal information” under Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act even if he/she is not directly provided with personal information from a person who manages or was in charge of the management of personal information,

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined to the effect that, even if the Defendant did not directly receive personal information from Nonindicted 1 who managed the personal information, it constitutes a constituent element of Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act, inasmuch as Nonindicted 1 knew of the fact that the personal information was provided to another person without authority, and received such personal information again from Nonindicted 2, who received such personal information from Nonindicted 1, for profit or

Examining the record in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of punishment under Article 71 subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

3. Meanwhile, according to the records, the Defendant asserted mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal, and did not clearly withdraw such assertion on the date of the original trial, but the lower court, on the sole ground that the Defendant’s grounds for appeal was the misapprehension of legal principles and the assertion of unfair sentencing, only rejected the judgment and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal

However, examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the omission of judgment by the lower court does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)