Supreme Court: "Watching CCTV Also Counts as Receiving Personal Data... Punishable"

The Supreme Court has ruled that simply watching closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage containing other individuals can be interpreted as receiving personal information, which can lead to punishment.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul / Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on the 15th, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) overturned the original verdict that acquitted former Gangwon Province Assembly member Lee Ki-chan, who was indicted for violating the Personal Information Protection Act, and remanded the case to the Chuncheon District Court on the 23rd of last month.

In February 2019, Lee was indicted on charges of unlawfully receiving personal information for improper purposes by viewing CCTV footage through a funeral home employee to check a specific person's 112 emergency call and filming the footage with his mobile phone.

The Personal Information Protection Act prohibits receiving personal information for profit or improper purposes without authorization.

The first trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 1 million won, but the appellate court reversed the decision, ruling that merely viewing the footage does not constitute "providing" personal information as prohibited under the Act.

However, the Supreme Court held that "in the case of 'video form personal information' related to the recorded individual's portrait, physical appearance, and location information, even if the information is obtained by watching the footage, it can be considered as receiving personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act if control and management rights are transferred."

This means that regardless of filming the CCTV footage, simply viewing it can be regarded as receiving personal information. The Supreme Court stated, "The employee played the footage and allowed the defendant to watch it, and the defendant's viewing of it constitutes providing personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act," adding, "The lower court erred in its legal interpretation, which affected the judgment."