[Personal Information, Criminal] Is Watching CCTV Footage a Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act?
Hello, I am Attorney Eom Sang-yoon of Changchul Law Firm.
Today, I will introduce a recent ruling regarding the viewing of CCTV footage and the Personal Information Protection Act.
[Obligations of Those Who Process or Have Processed Personal Information]
The Personal Information Protection Act Article 59, Clause 2 states that ‘those who process or have processed personal information’ are prohibited from leaking personal information they have learned in the course of their duties or providing it for others to use.
Furthermore, Article 71, Clause 9 of the Personal Information Protection Act (as per former Article 5 of the previous Personal Information Protection Act) stipulates that those who violate Article 59, Clause 2 by leaking personal information learned during their duties or providing it for others to use without authorization shall be punished with imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won.
Personal Information Protection Act Article 59 (Prohibited Acts) Those who process or have processed personal information shall not engage in any of the following acts: 1. Acquiring personal information or obtaining consent regarding processing by false or other dishonest means or methods. 2. Leaking personal information learned in the course of duties or providing it for others to use without authorization. 3. Using, damaging, destroying, altering, forging, or leaking another person's personal information without legitimate authority or beyond authorized authority. Article 71 (Penalties) Anyone who falls under any of the following clauses shall be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won. 9. Anyone who violates Article 59, Clause 2 by leaking personal information learned during their duties or providing it for others to use without authorization and those who have received personal information for commercial or dishonest purposes while knowing of those circumstances. |
[Summary of the Case]
The defendant 'Gap' reported to 112 that ‘the current chairman of the association is gambling at the funeral home.’ In response, the patrol team dispatched to the funeral home cracked down on the gambling scene. To confirm whether 'Gap' had made the gambling report, the defendant asked the funeral home staff for permission to view CCTV footage. After receiving the staff's permission, the defendant watched the CCTV footage and recorded it using their mobile phone.
As a result of these facts, the defendant was charged with violations of the former Personal Information Protection Act Article 71, Clause 5, and Article 59, Clause 2.
[Judgment of the Lower Court]
The first trial recognized the charges as guilty and imposed a fine of 1 million won.
On the other hand, the second trial determined that ‘in view of the formal language of the latter part of Article 71, Clause 5 of the former Personal Information Protection Act, it is not acceptable to interpret that the provision of personal information from a third party who possesses or processes such information was obtained by false or dishonest means against the will of the third party or without the third party's knowledge. Therefore, the act of the defendant recording the CCTV footage without the funeral home's staff knowing cannot be seen as receiving the personal information, and the act of viewing the footage only constitutes 'viewing' and does not qualify as 'receiving,' thus overturning the first trial’s decision and declaring the defendant not guilty concerning this case.
[Supreme Court's Judgment]
The Supreme Court overturned the second trial's ruling with a guilty sentiment. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘in cases where personal information exists in the form of video involving an individual's likeness, body appearance, and location information, receiving personal information in video form or through other means of viewing such information can be interpreted as ‘receiving personal information’ as defined in the latter part of Article 71, Clause 5 of the previous Personal Information Protection Act.’ Therefore, as the funeral home staff allowed the defendant to see the video, the act of viewing the video by the defendant can be regarded as receiving personal information, and the second trial's ruling was deemed a misunderstanding of the law.
[Implications of the Precedent]
In this case, there were differing judgments regarding the interpretation of the wording of the Personal Information Protection Act at each level of court. However, the Supreme Court noted that ‘viewing' personal information in the form of video, thus acquiring information about living individuals can also be considered receiving personal information. As such, a guilty verdict against the defendant is likely in the forthcoming retrial.
Meanwhile, it is common to view or receive CCTV footage through the administrator to secure video evidence, and consideration must be given to the stance of the aforementioned precedent. In particular, when requesting CCTV footage from lodging facilities as evidence to determine false accusations in sexual offense cases, it should be noted that issues of violations of the Personal Information Protection Act may arise, necessitating a risk-benefit analysis.
Changchul Law Firm, established by attorneys from the top four major law firms, specializes in corporate law and provides comprehensive solutions such as consultation and investigation responses related to personal information. If you have any further inquiries, please feel free to contact us via email or phone.
Related work cases that are good to see together
