Providing 'Work-Related Information' to Investigative Agencies... Supreme Court Calls It a "Leakage Act"

1st Trial: 5 Million Won Fine → 2nd Trial "Not Disclosure Under Personal Information Protection Act" Acquittal
Supreme Court: "Providing Personal Information to Investigation Agencies Also Constitutes Disclosure"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that attaching personal information obtained through work without the consent of the party involved in complaints or accusations constitutes a ‘disclosure’ act prohibited by the Personal Information Protection Act.

The Supreme Court’s 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 21st that it overturned the lower court’s acquittal in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Personal Information Protection Act, and remanded the case to the Gwangju District Court.

Mr. A, a former executive of a local agricultural cooperative, filed a complaint with the police around August 2014, alleging that Chairman B violated the Agricultural Cooperative Act and other charges. The complaint stated that Chairman B engaged in donation activities such as buying fruit for cooperative members and that wreaths, congratulatory money, and condolence money were made under personal names rather than the cooperative’s name.

Mr. A submitted as evidence CCTV footage showing Chairman B purchasing fruit through middlemen inside the courtroom, flower delivery records containing names and addresses of people he learned through work, and remittance records of congratulatory and condolence money.

As a result of Mr. A’s complaint, Chairman B was fined 700,000 won. Mr. A was prosecuted for submitting materials containing personal information obtained during work to investigative authorities.

The first trial sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 5 million won, stating that ‘a profit or dishonest purpose’ is not required for a person who provides or discloses personal information. However, the second trial acquitted him, ruling that informing investigative authorities of personal information for complaints or accusations is not a disclosure as defined by the Personal Information Protection Act.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment differed. The Supreme Court ruled that the act of informing investigative authorities of personal information also constitutes disclosure.

The court stated, “Mr. A’s actions cannot be excluded from personal information disclosure,” but added, “Whether the illegality is excused (meaning the conditions of the crime are met but it is not recognized as a crime) because it does not reach the level of punishable criminal conduct is a separate issue.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.