Supreme Court Rules: Viewing CCTV Footage Can Be Considered Receiving Personal Information

The Supreme Court has made a landmark ruling that ​simply viewing someone else’s CCTV footage without receiving it as‌ a file can be considered as providing personal information and is punishable.

Last month, the Second Division of the Supreme Court ⁢overturned the original trial verdict⁣ that ​acquitted former Gangwon-do lawmaker ⁤Lee Ki-chan, who ‌was‌ indicted on charges of violating the Personal Information Protection Act, and sent⁢ the case back ⁤to the Supreme Court’s Chuncheon District Court.

In February 2019, former MP Lee‌ was indicted on charges of receiving data containing personal information for fraudulent ‌purposes by​ viewing CCTV footage through a funeral ⁣home employee and​ filming it with a mobile phone to find out whether a specific person ‌had ⁢reported 112.

The Personal‌ Information Protection⁤ Act prohibits receiving personal ​information for commercial or ⁤fraudulent purposes without authorization.

The first trial found him guilty ‍of the charge and‍ sentenced him to ⁣a fine of 1 million won, ⁢but the second trial court found ⁤him not guilty ‍on the grounds that merely viewing cannot⁢ be considered an act of “providing,” which is prohibited under the Personal Data Protection Act.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment was different. The ⁤Supreme Court stated that in the case of ‘personal ​information in the form of a video’ relating to the portrait, body shape, ‌location ⁣information, etc. of⁤ the photographed​ individual, the rights of control and management are transferred by obtaining⁤ information about the individual who⁣ can be identified and identified by looking at him.

The​ court emphasized that even in this case, the person can ‌be considered a ‘person who has received personal information’ under the Personal Data ⁤Protection Act.

The idea is‍ that simply viewing ⁢CCTV footage can be considered an act of reception, regardless of whether it was filmed or not. The Supreme Court stated that the employee played the video for the defendant⁢ to view, and the ⁤defendant did view it, which‌ was an act of ⁤providing personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act.

Key Takeaways:

• Viewing CCTV footage can be considered receiving personal information.
• The​ Personal ​Information Protection Act prohibits receiving personal⁣ information for commercial or fraudulent purposes without authorization.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of protecting personal information and the need for individuals and organizations to handle ⁣it responsibly.