[김경환 변호사의 디지털법] 〈42〉The practice of writing complaints and accusations by company executives and employees must be changed.

Kyunghwan Kim, attorney at Minhoo Law Firm

In a recent internal complaint regarding a case suspected of illegal receipt of overtime pay in the workplace, the defendant’s resident registration number was submitted according to the complaint form provided by the investigative agency, and the complainant disclosed personal information such as resident registration number to the investigative agency. The gist of the ruling of the first trial of the Busan District Court is that it violated Article 18 of the Personal Information Protection Act, which states that personal information must not be used for purposes other than those intended, and is therefore subject to criminal punishment. There are many inquiries from companies about this.

In relation to this, in 2022, the Supreme Court issued two important rulings in the case of submitting other people’s personal information to investigative agencies. The first Supreme Court ruling (Supreme Court 2018Do1966 ruling, pronounced on November 10, 2022) was that Plaintiff A was a member of the union. This is a case in which the personal information of the union president that was discovered during work upon leaving the company was attached to the criminal complaint and submitted. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the act of submitting personal information by attaching another person’s personal information to a complaint or complaint without the consent of the information subject falls under Article 59, Paragraph 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

The second Supreme Court ruling (Supreme Court ruling 2022Do9510, pronounced on October 27, 2022) is a case in which B, a suspect belonging to a specific organization, arbitrarily submitted another person’s application for membership to an investigative agency without the consent of the writer. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that B’s arbitrary submission of another person’s application for membership to an investigative agency without the consent of the writer was a use or provision of personal information for a purpose other than that specified in Article 18 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

In summary, if a retired employee submits another person’s personal information to an investigative agency, it is a violation of Article 59, Paragraph 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, and if a worker submits another person’s personal information to an investigative agency, it is a violation of Article 18 of the Personal Information Protection Act. . The above first trial ruling of the Busan District Court can be considered an extension of the two rulings of the Supreme Court in 2022.

In the past, when executives and employees committed deviant acts such as breach of trust or embezzlement, companies have indiscriminately submitted personal information or documents related to executives and employees they possess to investigative agencies. However, it should be noted that maintaining such corporate practices not only denies the evidentiary capacity of submitted documents, but can also lead to punishment for violating the Personal Information Protection Act.

So how should we respond going forward? There are three methods to consider.

First, the consent of the accused executives and employees must be obtained. However, it would be rare for a person to voluntarily give consent in a situation where he or she is subject to criminal punishment. However, you may want to consider obtaining consent for these matters when you first join the company or when renewing your contract every year.

Second, you may be able to request an investigative agency to execute a warrant. However, executing a warrant against the complainant’s company is not a common sight, and there may be psychological resistance from the complainant, so it is unlikely to be a realistic method.

Third, you can request the investigative agency to submit related data. Article 18, Paragraph 2, Item 7 of the Personal Information Protection Act states that use or provision for purposes other than the purpose is possible ‘when necessary for the investigation of a crime and the filing and maintenance of a public indictment.’ The method is to write down only the rough details and request the investigative agency to submit relevant data so that the company can submit it, which is considered the most realistic method.

The importance of protecting personal information requires changes in the practices of companies’ executives and employees writing complaints and complaints. We need to quickly abandon existing practices and prepare in advance to ensure that legal practices recognized by the Supreme Court are well established.

Kyunghwan Kim, attorney at Minhoo Law Firm

How ⁢might this ruling affect the relationship between employees and their employers concerning data privacy and rights?

As the editor of world-today-news.com, I’m‌ pleased to ​present‌ an interview with two‌ experts discussing‌ the recent court ruling ⁤on the submission of personal information to investigative agencies. Our guests are Kyunghwan Kim, an attorney at Minhoo Law Firm, ⁢and Hyejung Park, the head of‍ the Data Protection Bureau at the National Police Agency.

1. Can you briefly explain the ⁣key points of the recent court ruling regarding ⁤the ⁤submission of personal information to investigative agencies and its implications for ​companies and ⁣employees?

2. ⁤In your‍ opinion, what⁢ steps can companies take‌ to ensure compliance with the Personal Information Protection Act regarding the submission of personal information to investigative agencies?

3. In what circumstances can companies submit personal information to investigative agencies without violating the act? How can they determine the legitimacy of such circumstances?

4. As an employee, what rights do I have regarding the submission ‍of my personal information to‍ investigative agencies?⁣ How⁢ can ‌I⁤ protect myself ​from unauthorized disclosure?

5. ⁤How can companies and employees work together to ensure that personal information is‌ not misused or mishandled​ during investigations?

6. In light of these​ developments, how should ​companies update their policies and⁣ procedures related to handling personal information and submitting it to ‍investigative agencies?

7. Are there any other implications of this ruling that companies should be aware of, such as potential liabilities or reputational risks associated with mishandling personal information?

8. What role should the​ government play in enforcing the Personal Information Protection Act, especially in cases involving submissions to investigative agencies?

9. How can individuals‌ and organizations balance the need for personal data protection with the needs of law enforcement and public safety?

10. What advice would​ you give to ⁤companies and individuals who are concerned about the potential misuse of personal information during investigations?