Ga. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

(b) Violation of the Wastes Control Act;

(c) Occupational embezzlement;

1.(a)(b) . (c) 1 . (58 years old, south) . free of office

Accommodation-si

Gyeonggi-gu in the original domicile

2. A. (b) .(c) . B (67 years old, South) . C Hospital staff.

Housing Sung-nam City

Special Metropolitan City, Gyeongcheon-gu, Gyeongcheon-do

3.(b)(c)(3)(6)(3)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2

Accommodation-si

Republic of Korea, Gyeong-si,

4. (a) A;

Tinglul

Representative Director

Representative

Visits ( Prosecution) and Mediation Uniforms (Public Trial)

Attorney Jini et al. (for defendant Jini et al)

Attorney B/L (for defendant B/L)

Attorneys Cho Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)

Law Firm (for Defendant A Medical Corporation)

Attorney Lee In-bok

September 15, 2017

[Defendant 1]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Defendant B]

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,00,00.

Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

[Defendant C]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Defendant A]

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,00,00.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

【Dismissal of Public Prosecution】

From November 2014 to December 2012, 2014, Defendant Jin (i.e., Title ②, ②, and a medical corporation, among the facts charged in the instant case

Public prosecution as to the violation of each Personal Information Protection Act from around January 2015 to around December 2015

The dismissal is dismissed.

【Non-guilty Part】

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant Ji ①, Title ②, and Medical Corporation A from December 30, 2015 to December 30, 2016.

8. The charge of violating each of the Personal Information Protection Act until March 31 is acquitted.

Facts of crime

1. Basic facts

From December 15, 1994 to September 7, 2016, Defendant Jin ① is the head of the diagnosis and examination team at a medical institution B University C Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “C Hospital”) which is a major agent of the Defendant medical corporation from around December 15, 1994, and is in charge of the inspection and management of blood samples collected for the diagnosis of various diseases while managing and supervising 10 out of the diagnosis and examination department, such as blood bank sets, molecular mar, and molecular mar, etc. The Defendant’s right ② from around June 16, 2011 to around September 7, 2016, in charge of the examination and examination of blood samples collected for the examination and examination of various diseases.

However, "Personal information, such as patient's name, registration number, gender/age, bottle, body number, blood collection time, and test items, is printed on a container containing blood body for diagnostic tests. In addition, the information is codeized on the Mas (limas) testing information system (hereinafter "Mas program"), which is installed on the computer of the diagnostic examination department, the above Mas (limas) testing information system (hereinafter "Mas program") was entered into the above Mas (lis) testing information number or the bar code was immediately known to the above Mas (the above Mas) patient's name, registration number, gender/age, disease, body number, body number, blood collection time, test items, examination items, and the result of the "examination" test. The defendant 1 ② output of the program was collected by the patient using the above Mas (i.e., the identification number and password, and the patient's output and password were stored by the patient.

On the other hand, Defendant 1 participated in the capital increase issued by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”), which is a specialized company for the development of diagnosis crypt operated by Defendant 3, a senior operator, and acquired KRW 462 of D shares by paying KRW 49,902,00 on May 15, 2013, and acquiring KRW 462 of D shares. In addition, around July 13, 2015, Defendant 1 paid KRW 30,000,000, and acquired KRW 167,764 shares of the said overseas local company.

2. Defendant Jin ①, Title ② ②, occupational embezzlement, and violation of the Wastes Control Act:

Defendant Jin ①, Section B, as seen above, is engaged in the business of managing blood samples of patients A owned by the victim medical corporation. Thus, the victim medical corporation shall not take them out without permission, and shall not dispose of them in accordance with the waste disposal plan confirmed in advance by the Minister of Environment because the blood samples after the diagnosis and inspection fall under designated wastes. C hospital plans to entrust the disposal of K stock company with the disposal of them, and shall not take them out to a third party, such as the diagnosis key developer, etc.

However, at around 2014, Defendant 1: (a) received a request from Defendant 3: (b) around 2014, from Defendant 1: (c) around 2014, to obtain a request from Defendant 1: (a) to obtain a result of the examination of blood samples and their body; (b) to obtain a result of the examination; (c) to obtain a result of the examination; and (d) to obtain a result of the examination; (b) to obtain a result of the examination of the patient’s blood samples and their body; and (c) to obtain a result of the examination of the patient’s blood samples from C Hospital; and (d) to obtain a method of taking the blood samples requested by D from Defendant 2; and (e) to obtain a result of the examination of the patient’s blood samples, Defendant 2 consented thereto.

As a result, Defendant Jini et al.: (a) on September 2014, 2014, a man who is an employee of the blood collection department of the first place of the blood collection department of the blood collection department of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Chhoe”) instructed ○ to instruct ○, and Defendant Jini et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Chhoe”). (b) on the one hand, Defendant Jini et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Chhoe”) instructed ○ to sit ○ in one’s side; and (c) on the other, searched her blood body, the diagnosis of which is completed by linking herme program with her computer, and then cut it into an X-cell file form; and (d) stored the remainder after printing it to ○○○, and marked the relevant inspection item on each body attached to each body of the body of the Republic of Korea, and ordered 0 to keep it in the eculic body by inserting 5 to 00.

The following facts are as follows: (i) around November 2014 to December 12, 201, the Defendant Jin-si: (ii) selected the blood body to be transferred to D from among the examination bodies collected at his office located in the examination department of Seongbuk-si Hospital Hospital; (iii) added or removed the patient’s name, registration number, gender/age, and bottle’s name to four pages; (iv) the remainder of the examination number, blood collecting time, examination items, bar code, and bar code from 20 to 25 weeks without permission; and (v) disposed of them from 20 to 10,000 in blood containers without permission from 20 to 20,000; and (v) disposed of them from 20 to 10,000 in blood containers without permission.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled approximately 4,00 blood samples, which are the property owned by the victim medical corporation A, and at the same time disposed of approximately 4,000 blood samples, which are controlled by the Minister of Environment, as medical wastes, differently from the waste disposal plan confirmed in advance by the Minister of Environment.

The Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, disposed of the foregoing differently from the waste disposal plan confirmed in advance by the Minister of Environment with respect to the Defendant’s business ①, ②, and ②.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

○ Defendant 1 ①, Title ②

Articles 356, 355(1), 30(a), and each Wastes Control Act

Article 66 subparagraph 4 and Article 17 (3) of the Criminal Act, and Article 30 (Disposal of Wastes Disposal Plans Ascertainmented)

Water Treatment

○ Defendant 3

Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of each Criminal Code (the point of occupational embezzlement, and the defendant's occupational embezzlement)

Article 355 of the Criminal Act in accordance with the proviso of Article 33 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, since there is no identity of a custodian.

(1) Punishment provided for in paragraph (1) of this Article, Article 66 subparagraph 4 of each Wastes Control Act, Article 17 (3) of the Criminal Act,

Article 30 (Occupancys of Wastes Disposal Plans Ascertainmented and Other Wastes Disposal Plans)

○ Medical Corporation A

Articles 67, 66 subparag. 4, and 17(3) of the Wastes Control Act

1. Competition;

Defendant J. ①, A. B., C. Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Code

1. Selection of penalty;

○ Defendant 1 ①, Section 3: Selection of imprisonment

○ Defendant B: Selection of a fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant Jin ①, N. ②, K.C.: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50(1)2, and Article 50(1) of the Criminal Code

Defendant Jin ①, Jinh: Section 62(1) of each Criminal Code (for the following reasons, the Defendants

favorable circumstances)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant B: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B, medical corporation A: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Summary of the assertion

(a) Defendant J. ①, A. B., C.

The blood body taken out by the Defendants does not constitute property which is the object of embezzlement, and there was no intention to obtain it from the Defendants at the time of this case.

(b) Defendant A medical corporation;

The Defendant had exercised due care and supervision to prevent the act of violation by educating employees from time to time so that blood samples, which are designated wastes, can be properly managed.

2. Determination

A. Property which is the object of embezzlement does not necessarily need to have a monetary exchange value, and it is sufficient that the owner has a subjective value (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7481, Apr. 28, 2004, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, when the defendants, recognized by the aforementioned evidence, have the biological process and management method of blood samples taken out, the above blood samples are objects of embezzlement.

applicable to property.

In addition, in light of the relevant legal principles (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2551 delivered on September 6, 1996, etc.), it is judged that there was an intention to obtain the law to dispose of blood samples as if the blood samples were owned by oneself in violation of his/her duties, i.e., rain ①, etc.

B. In light of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant medical corporation, recognized by the aforementioned evidence, managed blood samples; (b) Defendant Jini et al., carried out blood samples without permission for a long period; and (c) the Defendant appears to have failed to check whether blood samples were discarded for a short time during the foregoing period; and (d) it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have exercised due care and supervision over the prevention of the violation of the Wastes Control Act.

Reasons for sentencing

The crime of this case is committed in collusion between Defendant Jin ①, Section ②, Section ②, and Section ③, Section ②, and Section ②, by taking out approximately 4,00 of the checker container in which the blood body was stored at the hospital at which Defendant Jin, Section ②, and Section ②, and embezzlement them without permission, and at the same time, the designated wastes are treated in conformity with the waste disposal plan confirmed by the Minister of Environment, and the Defendant medical corporation commits the act of violating the Wastes Control Act as stated above, Section ②, Section A, and Section B, and the act of violating the Wastes Control Act, in light of the substance and method of the crime, and the size of the blood body container taken out without permission.

On the other hand, the defendants reflects their mistakes, and the defendants appear to have caused the crime of this case in order to resolve difficulties in securing blood samples which require the development of diagnosis reagents, and the blood samples taken out by the defendants were treated according to the designated waste treatment procedure under the Wastes Control Act, the defendant Eul seems to have been involved in the crime of this case according to the order of the defendant Jini et al., the team leader, the defendant Jini et al., the defendant Jin et al., the defendant Jin et al., the right ②, and the right ② are no other punishment than punishment sentenced once due to the violation of each Road Traffic Act, and the defendant Jin et al. third is a primary offender who has no criminal power.

In addition to the above various circumstances favorable to or unfavorable to the defendant, the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances of the sentencing, including the circumstances after the crime, etc.

Public prosecution rejection and acquittal parts

1. This part of the facts charged

(a) Basic facts

From December 15, 1994 to September 7, 2016, Defendant Jin ① is the head of the diagnosis and examination team at a medical institution B University C Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “C Hospital”) which is a major agent of the Defendant medical corporation from around December 15, 1994, and is in charge of the inspection and management of blood samples collected for the diagnosis of various diseases while managing and supervising 10 out of the diagnosis and examination department, such as blood bank sets, molecular mar, and molecular mar, etc. The Defendant’s right ② from around June 16, 2011 to around September 7, 2016, in charge of the examination and examination of blood samples collected for the examination and examination of various diseases.

However, "Personal information, such as patient's name, registration number, gender/age, bottle, body number, blood collection time, and test items, is printed on a container containing blood body for diagnostic tests. In addition, the information is codeized on the Mas (limas) testing information system (hereinafter "Mas program"), which is installed on the computer of the diagnostic laboratory, if the above Mas (limas) testing information system (hereinafter "Mas program") inputs the above Mas (hereinafter "Mas program"), or acknowledges the bar code, it is immediately possible for the above patient to easily understand the patient's name, registration number, sex/age, disease, body number, body number, blood collection time, test items, test items, and the result of the "inspection" test.

In addition, the above patient's personal information was collected, recorded, stored, searched, printed, and used, etc.

On the other hand, Defendant 1 participated in the capital increase of D's shares (hereinafter "D"), which is a diagnosis key development company C, which is operated by Cho Jong, Cho Jae-gu, a high-ranking branch, and acquired D's shares 462 shares by paying KRW 49,902,000 to D's shares around May 15, 2013, and around July 13, 2015, Defendant 1 paid KRW 30,000,000, and acquired KRW 167,764 shares of the said overseas subsidiary.

(b) Defendant 1 ①, Title ②

Defendant 1: (1) around 2014, Defendant 1: (a) received a request from the above 3rd to D for the development of diagnosis height; (b) from the above 3rd; (c) he held D shares; and (d) taking advantage of the fact that he was in charge of examining and managing the blood body of patients with C hospital; and (c) having been in charge of examining and managing the blood body of patients with C hospital, the examination items and numerical value of the patient with C hospital’s blood body, the result of the examination, etc. for the patient with C hospital’s blood body, the method of searching the blood body requested by D, and (b) requested the Defendant’s right ② to inform the staff of the diagnosis and examination department, and the Defendant’s right ② consented.

As a result, Defendant 1 ② instructed ○○, an employee of the blood collection department, who is an employee of the blood collection department, after conducting a regular examination on September 2014, to instruct ○○○. The Defendant’s right ② instructed ○○ to sit ○ in one’s side. The Defendant’s right ② searched the blood body, the diagnosis of which has been completed, by linking the mast program with the mast program, and by inserting it into the x-cell file form, and then cut off only the abnormal subject, which is indicated as soon as possible, and then then stored the remaining deleted or hidden work, and then printed it to ○○○○, and marked the relevant inspection item on the Belgium container attached to each body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the deceased and instructed 0 to keep the body of the body of the deceased through 0 to 0 to 0 to 7 to 0 to 0 to 5 to hereinafter the result of the inspection.

After that, Defendant 1 (i) has selected blood samples to be transferred to D, among the samples collected at its office located in the examination department of the C Hospital at the time between November 2014 and December 12, 2014.

The part of the patient's name, registration number, gender/age, and bottled shall be added to or removed from a four-dimensional pent, and the remainder shall remain the body number, blood collecting time, inspection items, inspection result, bar code's number shall be left, and the part shall be 20-25 of the examination container, in the same manner from January 2015 to December 2015, 10-120 blood samples, and the part shall be 0-10 to 30-25 of the two-round 20-10 of the two-round 20 of the two-round 20 of the two-round 20 of the two-round 10-120 blood samples, and the two-round 31 of the two-round 20 of the two-round 20 of the two-round 31st of the two-round 20 of the three-round 20 of the two-round 31st of the two-round 20.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to handle personal information and leaked about 4,00 personal information of the patients attached to the Belgium.

(c) Defendant A medical corporation;

The Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, leaked the above personal information with respect to the Defendant’s business ①, ②, and ②.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of each individual information security law from around November 2014 to December 2014 and from around January 2015 to December 2015, from around December 2015 to around December 2015

1) Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The description of the facts charged shall be written to specify the facts by ordering the time, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of the provision is to ensure the efficiency and speed of the trial by limiting the object of the trial and, at the same time, to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. Therefore, even if a general indication on the date, time, place, etc. of a crime is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, a prosecutor shall specify the facts by the evidence as soon as possible at the time of the indictment or amendment of the indictment, and where the failure to do so hinders the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense, it cannot be said that there is an indictment stating the specific facts of the crime as provided in Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 208Do418, Mar. 14, 2008; 2013Do6826, Oct. 26, 2013).

Meanwhile, in principle, a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act due to the leakage of personal information constitutes separate crimes for each subject of information. Therefore, the details, etc. of personal information leaked by a subject of information and a defendant should be specified in the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13263, Apr. 7, 2017).

2) This part of the facts charged is merely limited to the purport that the Defendants’ body number on the surface of the blood body container taken out, the body number, the test item, the test result, and the bar code part were remaining. Therefore, it is difficult to find out what the above blood body container is about a patient or what the detailed body number, etc. is about.

Ultimately, this part of the facts charged is limited to the time and completion period of the crime, the type and approximate number of personal information leaked by the defendants, and it is difficult to view that the facts charged are specified to the extent that it does not interfere with the exercise of the right of defense of the accused, since the identity of the subject of information or the specific contents of personal information leaked by the defendants do not appear.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is null and void in violation of the provisions of law.

As such, the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. As to the violation of each Personal Information Protection Act from around December 30, 2015 to August 31, 2016

1) According to Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, the relevant information alone is included in personal information, even if it is not possible to identify a specific individual but can be easily combined with other information. In light of the legislative purpose of the Personal Information Protection Act (Article 1 of the same Act) to protect the freedom and rights of an individual and to realize an individual’s dignity and value, etc., by prescribing matters concerning the management and protection of personal information, whether certain information can be identified by combining it with other information ought to be reasonably determined based on the content that contains the relevant information not simply on the provider of information but on the basis of the provider of information, the relationship between the person exchanging the information, the purpose and method of the use of the information, the degree of effort and cost necessary to combine the other information, the details of the benefit gained by

Meanwhile, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it clear that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the conviction cannot be made (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.).

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed in the record, it is difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that this part of the facts charged was proven without any reasonable doubt.

A) First of all, it is difficult to view that the part of the body number, blood collection time, test items, test result, and bar code, which were left on the blood body container surface taken out by the Defendants, as personal information that can promptly identify the relevant patient.

B) To verify the specific personal information, etc. of the relevant patient through the autopsy number, etc. indicated on the blood body container surface, the marina program and electronic medical record system operated by C Hospital should be used. The marina program is accessible by the diagnostic laboratory staff, but at the same time the access authority is differentiated depending on the position, and the electronic medical record system is managed so that only the medical specialists can have access.

C) If Defendant Jin ①, Title ②, ② is authorized to access this horse program only for the reason that the above autopsy number, etc. is considered to constitute personal information, it would result in unfair consequences that would result in the leakage of personal information without any conditions even if Defendant Jini et al. provides any data related to blood samples.

D) In order to develop the diagnostic medicine, D merely important test items and test values of blood samples, and did not require the name, age, gender, etc. of the patient at all, and there was no data on the patient’s personal information, etc. from Defendant Jin ① et al., and there was no fact that Defendant Jini et al. connected to the marina program through Defendant Jini ① et al.

E) On the blood body container surface taken out by Defendant JA et al., Defendant JA et al., the first patient’s name, registration number, gender, age, and bottle was marked, but Defendant JA et al., (i) added or removed the above parts to the pentle before the body container was taken out. In light of this, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants had the intent to commit a crime of leakage of personal information.

F) Furthermore, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

3) Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the Defendants did not consent to the public announcement of the judgment of innocence, the summary of the judgment is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of

Justices Kim Tae-tae