Officials found not guilty in Supreme Court for unauthorized access to personal information... Why?

Last October, the Supreme Court made headlines by issuing a final not guilty verdict in a case of unauthorized viewing of personal information by a public official.

The circumstances of the incident are as follows. Mr. A, a civil servant working at an administrative welfare center in Busan, viewed personal information about his ex-lover B and his family 52 times through the social security information system in 2022. The system was created for the purpose of managing welfare allowance recipients, but during this process, Mr. A did not receive consent from those who were viewing the information, including Mr. B.

The prosecution determined that Mr. A violated the Personal Information Protection Act. According to Article 59, Paragraph 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act, a person who processes or has processed personal information cannot acquire personal information or obtain consent for processing through ‘false or other illegal means or methods.’ Article 27, Paragraph 2 of the same Act also provides for punishment of those who violate Article 59, Paragraph 1 and those who have received personal information for profit or fraudulent purposes while knowing the circumstances.

However, the court's judgment was different. The first trial court found Mr. A not guilty. The court found that Mr. A’s actions amounted to simple ‘abuse of authority.’ At the time, the only process required to view personal information in the system was to enter one's ID and password, but it was discovered that Mr. A worked while logging in through a specific terminal assigned to him. The court emphasized, "In order to be found guilty, it is necessary to go beyond simply abusing the given authority and use 'unfair means and methods.'"

The prosecutor appealed, but Mr. A was found not guilty in the second trial. The appellate court stated the reason for dismissing the appeal, saying, “There was no misconception of facts in the original judgment.” The result was the same in the subsequent appeal trial. The Supreme Court also ruled that Mr. A's actions could only be grounds for disciplinary action in accordance with internal rules, etc., and that criminal punishment was not possible.

In the case of this not guilty verdict, it can be said to be the result of the reality that there is no legal basis for prohibiting public officials from unauthorized viewing and acquisition of personal information and no corresponding punishment regulations. This is because, according to the legal principle of criminal punishment, if there is no punishment provision specified in the law, the court cannot punish the act in question. Therefore, in order to impose punishment for related acts, it is necessary for the National Assembly to prepare punishment regulations through legislative procedures.

However, amendments to the law are still far away. Therefore, in order to fill the legal gap related to personal information protection, it appears that it is urgent to come up with self-help measures at the administrative level. There is a need to prevent unauthorized viewing of personal information by taking measures such as strengthening security through technical means. In addition, it can be said that strict management is required through strengthening disciplinary action and authority management for public officials viewing inappropriate information.

[View full article]
Government official 'not guilty' of unauthorized viewing of personal information... Why? (Shortcut)