Personal Information Protection Act | Analysis of a Supreme Court Judgment Holding That a Person Without Authority Who Viewed CCTV Footage May Be Subject to Criminal Punishment

The defendant brought to trial on charges of violating the Personal Information Protection Act was A, who had served as the director of a local research institute.

Meanwhile, one day a report came in at a funeral hall in the area stating that “the incumbent cooperative chairman is gambling.” In response to this report, the police raided the site and conducted a crackdown.

The problem began when A visited the funeral hall the next day. A wanted to confirm the exact identity of the person who had made the report. A therefore went to the funeral hall's management office and requested to view the CCTV footage.

A funeral hall employee showed A the CCTV footage. A recorded that CCTV footage with A's own mobile phone.

The prosecution filed an indictment, alleging that A, for the wrongful purpose of confirming whether a particular person had made the gambling report, received CCTV footage containing personal information.

In the case concerning the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, the first-instance court first found A guilty on all of the charges and imposed a fine.

The appellate court, however, reached a different conclusion. It reversed the first-instance judgment and entered an acquittal.

The appellate court reexamined the prosecution's allegations point by point.

In the charged facts, the prosecution had stated that “the employee played the CCTV footage and allowed the defendant to view it, and the defendant, by recording it using the video function of his mobile phone, thereby ‘received’ the CCTV footage containing personal information.”

The appellate court determined that the funeral hall employee at the time had merely played the CCTV footage and shown it to A, and that it was recognized that A had secretly and without authorization recorded the footage while the employee was briefly attending to other matters.

The court then referred to Article 71, subparagraph 5, of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Because that provision is intended to punish the act of ‘receiving’ personal information for a profit-making or wrongful purpose, the court held that, where personal information was not received from a third party who held and processed it but rather was acquired by false or wrongful means against the will of the third party or without the third party's knowledge, such conduct cannot be punished.

The court noted that to treat even such a case as punishable under Article 71, subparagraph 5, of the Personal Information Protection Act and the like would amount to an expansive interpretation exceeding the possible meaning of the statutory text, which is not permissible.

The Supreme Court's determination concerning the Personal Information Protection Act was different yet again.

The Supreme Court found that A qualified as a ‘person who received personal information.’

The reason was that, as in this case, where an individual's portrait, physical appearance, location information, and the like exist in the form of footage, a person who has viewed it should be regarded as having been transferred the right to control and manage the personal information of a living individual.

The Court emphasized that, in A's case, A requested the employee to play the CCTV footage and viewed it, and that this therefore constitutes the “act of receiving personal information” provided for in the Personal Information Protection Act.

The Court added that the appellate court had misapprehended the legal principles concerning a ‘person who received personal information,’ thereby affecting the judgment, and that the prosecutor's final appeal therefore had merit.

One of the items that consistently appears in disputes concerning the Personal Information Protection Act is the ‘CCTV.’

In particular, these days CCTV is installed in most places that people visit, such as restaurants and cafes, so such controversies arise more frequently.

Installing CCTV with the casual attitude that ‘everyone does it’ should be avoided, because it may run afoul of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Even where CCTV has been installed lawfully, such footage must not be provided to others for commercial or unlawful purposes. As in the case above, receiving it is likewise not permitted.

If you come to face charges of violating the Personal Information Protection Act, it can be advisable to promptly seek a consultation with an attorney experienced in such matters.

Daeryun Law Firm LLP has many attorneys who have handled a variety of cases relating to the Personal Information Protection Act.

If you have any related inquiries, you are welcome to request a 🔗consultation with Daeryun Law Firm LLP at any time.