2013Do16023(a) Violation of the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information

(b) Violence;

(c) Intimidation;

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Attorney X, Y, Z, AA

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 - 3114 Decided November 29, 2013

September 4, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on Articles 1 and 2 of the facts charged of this case

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of assault and intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds

2. As to the ground of appeal on Article 3 of the facts charged of this case

A. Article 1 of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the purpose of Article 1 is to protect the privacy from the divulgence, misuse, and abuse of location information, to create a safe environment for the use of location information, thereby facilitating the use of location information, thereby contributing to the improvement of people's lives and the promotion of public welfare. Article 2 of the Act provides that "location information" refers to information about a place where a mobile object or an individual exists or existed at a certain time, which is collected using telecommunications equipment and telecommunications equipment and telecommunications line equipment and facilities defined in subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 2 of the Telecommunications Business Act (including personal location information that can be easily combined with other information, even if the location of a specific individual cannot be identified with the above information), and "personal location information" refers to the personal location information of a specific individual (Article 15 (1) and 40 (4) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Article 15 (1) and (2) of the Act or the person who provided such personal location information without consent.

In light of the language and structure of the legal provisions of this case and the relevant provisions, it can be known that the legal provisions of this case intend to prohibit and punish the act of collecting location information of the individual in question, i.e., collecting personal location information without consent. Thus, the legal provisions of this case cannot be deemed to violate the principle of clarity under the Constitution. Accordingly, the ground of appeal that the legal provisions of this case are unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

B. Meanwhile, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty by applying the legal provisions of this case as to the violation of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information among the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law as to the application of

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de