2015 High Court 1144 Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

A (Vocation: reporter)

Isle (Lawsuits) and Oralle (Trial)

Law Firm Sin Law Firm

Attorney Kim Jae-hoon in charge

December 18, 2015

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for a period of 100,000 won converted into one day.

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

Facts of crime

The defendant is a reporter belonging to the Internet newspaper ○○.

No person who has managed or processed personal information shall divulge personal information he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties or provide it to another person

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2014. 11. 25. 15 : 07경 서울 마포구 소재 인터넷 신문인 OO의 인터넷 뉴스 사이트 ( www. OO. co. kr ) 에 " 이곳에 △△을 공짜로 보는 ' 마▽ 미□ ' 이 살고 있다 " 라는 제목으로 " 서울 용산구 Xx동 xxx - xx번지 ( 주소 특정하여 기재 ) 는 아침드라마에 나오는 ' 회장님 댁 ' 같았다. 맞다. 여기는 회장님이 살고 있는 곳이다. 서울지하철 * * 역 * 번 출입구로 나와 걸어서 10분, 등에 땀이 송골송골 맺힐 즈음 도착한 곳은 고 박○○ 명예회장의 사위이자 M & A ( 인수합병 ) 업계의 큰손인 김○○ 회장 저택이다. 우편함에는 저 멀리 뉴욕에서 날아온 편지가 있었다. 수신자는 ' Mr. Miy Kim ' 이었고 발신자는 뉴욕의 한 금융회사인 것 같았다. .. .. . " 라는 내용의 기사를 게재하여 일반인으로 하여금 이를 열람할 수 있도록 함으로써 인터넷 언론의 기자로서 취재 활동 중에 알게 된 위 김○○의 성명, 지위, 거주지주소 등의 개인정보를 누설하였다 .

Summary of Evidence

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 71 Subparag. 5 and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act; Selection of a fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Article 71 Subparag. 5 and Article 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) asserts that a personal information manager who manages personal information discloses personal information that he/she learned in the course of performing his/her duties in order to operate the personal information file, and that a newspaper reporter like the Defendant is not a personal information manager, and thus, the said provision cannot punish the Defendant.

In order to operate a personal information file to a personal information manager, Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Act provides that "public institution, corporation, organization, individual, etc. that processes personal information on their own or through another person" is subject to the requirement of "management of the personal information file". This is also defined separately as "management of personal information" (Article 2 subparagraph 1 and 2 of the Act). (2) Article 59 of the Act provides that "a person who processes or processes personal information separately from a personal information manager". (3) Article 71 subparagraph 1 of the Act provides that a personal information manager provides a third person with personal information without the consent of a subject of information. (4) Article 71 subparagraph 2 and Article 19 of the Act provides a third person with personal information without the consent of a subject of information, and Article 71 subparagraph 2 of the Act provides a third person with personal information by punishing the third person to use it, and Article 75 subparagraph 5 of the Act provides a separate personal information to a third person."

2. The defendant and his defense counsel stated that Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act provides that Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act does not apply to personal information collected and used by the press in order to achieve its own purpose, including coverage and news report, and that "use of personal information" in light of the characteristics of the press means "report" collected in the process of coverage, and therefore, the defendant's reporting of personal information by Kim○-○ for the news report of this case is based on the above provision, and thus, the Personal Information Protection Act does not apply.

In light of the purport of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act does not apply to the exception of Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act from Chapter 3 to Chapter 7, and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act, which is a penal provision for the defendant, provides exceptions to only "collection of personal information", "use", and "use", "public disclosure", are distinguished in the Personal Information Protection Act, and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act provides that "the collection of personal information", "use of personal information", and "public disclosure", and Article 58 (1) 4 of the Act does not apply to the case where the media uses personal information for news coverage and news reporting, even if it is difficult to view that the personal information is reported to the general public.

In full view of all the circumstances such as the deletion of personal information and the primary offender after the defendant's personal information was leaked, the punishment shall be determined as per the order.

Judges Park Young-chul