"Personal Information Not Easily Considered 'Illegally Obtained'"
The Supreme Court has ruled that telemarketing operators purchasing a large amount of customer information from personal information sellers alone cannot be considered a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.
This ruling means that if the source and distribution process of illegally collected personal information are unknown and the information is simply purchased, the penal provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act cannot be applied.
According to the legal community on the 18th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) upheld the lower court's ruling that acquitted part of the charges in the appeal trial of three telemarketing operators, A, B, and C, who were indicted for violating the Personal Information Protection Act.
The three defendants, including A, received personal information about customers whose internet service subscriptions were about to expire and conducted telemarketing subscription solicitation sales. They were prosecuted on charges of receiving 2,777,259, 1,025,217, and 156,439 pieces of personal information respectively from personal information sellers for profit or improper purposes.
The key issue was whether purchasing personal information from personal information sellers could be considered an ‘improper means or method’ under the Personal Information Protection Act.
The first trial court found the three guilty of purchasing personal information from the sellers. It sentenced A to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 3-year probation, B to 1 year in prison with a 3-year probation, and C to 10 months in prison with a 2-year probation.
However, the second trial court ruled that the act of purchasing information from the personal information sellers itself was not guilty. It reasoned that for a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act to be established, the personal information sellers must be ‘persons who process or have processed personal information,’ but there was no evidence to support this. Although the second trial court acquitted some charges that the first trial court had found guilty, it maintained the original sentences.
The prosecution appealed, but the Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court’s judgment.
The court held that although the defendants purchased personal information, it was difficult to conclude that they knew the information was obtained through improper means or methods. Furthermore, simply purchasing a large amount of personal information without verifying its source cannot be considered using socially unacceptable methods such as hacking.
The court stated, "It was incorrect for the lower court to rule that the crime under Article 72, Paragraph 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act did not apply solely because there was no evidence that the defendants obtained personal information directly from the data subjects or received consent for its processing." However, it added, "It is justifiable for the lower court to acquit the defendants under Article 72, Paragraph 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act on the grounds that purchasing a large amount of personal information from personal information sellers without verifying the source does not constitute using deception or other socially unacceptable methods to influence the sellers' decision or using hacking or other inherently improper methods," thus dismissing the prosecution’s appeal.
However, regarding the defendants exchanging personal information among themselves, the Supreme Court, like the second trial court, found them guilty. Accordingly, the sentences from the first trial were maintained.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
