Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
An ambiguous indictment that obliges the court to seek the prosecutor's clarification
Supreme Court, June 5, 2026, 2026Do2358 (judgment)
Case name: 개인정보보호법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When the acts described in an indictment and the applicable provisions cited in it can each support a different offence, must the court ask the prosecutor which offence is charged before convicting the defendant under the former Personal Information Protection Act?
Holding
It must. Under the principle of no trial without indictment, the prosecutor must make the indictment's facts and applicable provisions clear; where they reveal an inconsistency serious enough to affect the finding of guilt or to hamper the defence, the court must seek the prosecutor's clarification under Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and have the indictment properly supplemented before it examines the elements and decides guilt. Here the indictment and its applicable provisions could be read as charging an offence under Article 71(i) and Article 17(1)(i) of the former Personal Information Protection Act, or as charging one under Article 71(v) and Article 59(ii) of the same Act, so the appellate court should have sought clarification and failed to do so.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
공소장에 기재된 공소사실과 적용법조가 서로 다른 구성요건이나 법률적 평가를 전제로 하는 등 조화롭지 않고 부정합성을 드러내어 유무죄의 판단에 영향을 미치거나 피고인의 방어권 행사에 지장을 초래할 정도에 이른 경우
Unofficial English translation
Where the charged facts stated in the indictment and the applicable statutory provisions presuppose different constituent elements or legal evaluations and the like, and are inconsistent with each other and reveal incompatibility, reaching such a degree as to affect the determination of guilt or innocence or to impede the exercise of the defendant's right of defense
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
법원으로서는 형사소송규칙 제141조에 따라 검사에게 공소사실 및 적용법조의 문제점이나 오류 등에 관한 석명을 구하여 공소장을 올바르게 보완하도록 한 다음 이에 따라 충실하게 심리·판단할 필요가 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The court needs to request the prosecutor under Article 141 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure to clarify the problems or errors in the charged facts and the applicable statutory provisions, and thereby have the indictment properly supplemented, and then to conduct a full examination and determination accordingly.
Factors
- 공소장에 기재된 공소사실 중 일부와 적용법조에 따르면
- ‘개인정보를 처리하거나 처리하였던 자가 업무상 알게 된 개인정보를 누설한다는 사정을 알면서도 영리 또는 부정한 목적으로 그로부터 개인정보를 제공받은 사람’을 처벌하는 같은 법 제71조 제5호, 제59조 제2호 위반죄로 공소가 제기되었다고 볼 여지도 있어
- 공소장 기재 내용에 관한 서로 다른 해석이 가능하여 공소제기의 취지가 명료하지 않고
- 검사에게 구 개인정보 보호법 제71조 제5호, 제59조 제2호 위반죄와 같은 법 제71조 제1호, 제17조 제1항 제1호 위반죄 중 어느 죄로 공소를 제기하는 것인지 등에 관하여 석명을 구하고
Unofficial English translation
• According to part of the charged facts stated in the indictment and the applicable statutory provisions,
• there is also room for regarding the public prosecution as having been instituted for the violation of Article 71, subparagraph 5 and Article 59, subparagraph 2 of the same Act, which punishes "a person who, knowing the circumstance that a person who processes or has processed personal information discloses personal information learned in the course of work, receives personal information therefrom for a profit-making or unjust purpose",
• different interpretations of the content stated in the indictment are possible, so that the intent of the institution of the public prosecution is unclear, and
• the prosecutor should be requested to clarify, among other things, for which of the offenses — the violation of Article 71, subparagraph 5 and Article 59, subparagraph 2 of the former Personal Information Protection Act or the violation of Article 71, subparagraph 1 and Article 17(1) 1 of the same Act — the public prosecution is being instituted, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 6. 15. 선고 2017도3448 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do3448 decided June 15, 2017
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 6. 15. 선고 2017도3448 판결(공2017하, 1513), 대법원 2026. 4. 16. 선고 2025도12357 판결(공2026상, 1172)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the prosecutor answers the court's request for clarification after the first-instance trial is over, may the court convict on the clarified offence when the first-instance judgment never examined its elements?
The judgment the Jeonju District Court delivers on remand will show how the clarification request works in practice and which offence it ends up charging. Any amendment to Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, or a later decision that qualifies this rule on inconsistent indictments, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary can emphasize the holding's general conditions requiring clarification as a statement of requirements, while the independent can emphasize its application to the two possible privacy offenses as case-specific application.
공소장 기재 내용에 관한 서로 다른 해석이 가능하여 공소제기의 취지가 명료하지 않고 그로 인해 피고인의 방어권 행사에도 지장이 초래될 수 있는 경우Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the prosecutor answers the court's request for clarification after the first-instance trial is over, may the court convict on the clarified offence when the first-instance judgment never examined its elements?” vs Independent “Once the charge is clarified, does the defendant's conduct satisfy the elements of that offense?”
The primary asks whether clarification after the first-instance trial permits conviction without prior examination of the elements, while the independent asks whether the conduct satisfies the clarified offense's elements.
공소장에 기재된 공소사실과 적용법조가 서로 다른 구성요건이나 법률적 평가를 전제로 하는 등 조화롭지 않고 부정합성을 드러내어 유무죄의 판단에 영향을 미치거나 피고인의 방어권 행사에 지장을 초래할 정도에 이른 경우Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The first-instance court found all the acts in the indictment proved and fined the defendant KRW 3 million, citing Article 71(i) and Article 17(1)(ii) of the Personal Information Protection Act in the part stating the applicable law. The Jeonju District Court, in its judgment of 28 January 2026 (2024No1621), dismissed the defendant's appeal and left that judgment standing.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the acts and the cited provisions in the indictment could be read as charging either an offence under Article 71(i) and Article 17(1)(i) of the former Personal Information Protection Act, where the recipient knew the disclosure was without the data subject's consent, or an offence under Article 71(v) and Article 59(ii), where the recipient obtained work-related personal information for profit or an improper purpose. The purpose of the indictment was therefore unclear and the defendant's defence could be hampered, so the court below should have sought clarification under Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and then examined the elements. By leaving the first-instance guilty finding in place without doing so, it misstated the law on the offence and on the exercise of the right to seek clarification and failed to conduct the necessary examination, and the judgment was reversed and remanded on the Justices' unanimous opinion.
Distinguishing conditions
- An indictment whose acts and applicable provisions point to a single offence, so that no inconsistency arises and the purpose of the prosecution is already clear.
- A case in which the court sought the prosecutor's clarification and the purpose of the indictment became clear, after which the elements of the clarified offence were examined and decided.
- An inconsistency between the acts and the applicable provisions that does not reach the degree of affecting the finding of guilt or hampering the exercise of the defence rights.
Record verification notes
Set the acts stated in the indictment against each applicable provision cited in it, and test whether the same facts can support two offences with different elements, as they could here under Article 17(1)(i) and Article 59(ii) of the former Act. Then look at the record for any request for clarification the court made to the prosecutor under Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and the answer given. Confirm which version of the Personal Information Protection Act applies, since the decision used the Act as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 19234 of 14 March 2023.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 불고불리 원칙과 법원의 심판 범위 / 공소장에 기재된 공소사실과 적용법조가 서로 다른 구성요건이나 법률적 평가를 전제로 하는 등 조화롭지 않고 부정합성을 드러내어 유무죄 판단에 영향을 미치거나 피고인의 방어권 행사에 지장을 초래할 정도에 이른 경우, 법원이 취할 조치 [2] 검사가 피고인을 구 개인정보 보호법 위반으로 기소하면서, 공소장에 피고인이 갑의 동의가 없다는 사정을 알면서도 이동통신 가입자에 대한 개인정보 처리 업무를 담당하던 을에게 ‘통신사 조회시스템을 이용하여 갑의 전화번호를 조회한 뒤 알려달라.’고 요구하여 을로부터 그 정보를 제공받았다는 공소사실을 기재하고, ‘같은 법 제71조 제1호, 제17조 제1항 제2호 등’을 적용법조로 기재한 사안에서, 공소장 기재 내용에 관한 서로 다른 해석이 가능하여 공소제기의 취지가 명료하지 않고 그로 인해 피고인의 방어권 행사에도 지장이 초래될 수 있는 경우이므로, 원심은 소송관계를 명료하게 하기 위해 검사에게 석명을 구하고, 그에 따라 공소제기의 취지가 명료해지면 거기에 맞추어 범죄구성요건 충족 여부를 심리한 후 유무죄를 판단했어야 한다는 이유로, 이러한 조치를 취하지 않은 채 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 원심판단에 법리오해 및 심리미진의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] the principle of no adjudication without a charge and the scope of the court's adjudication / the measures the court should take where the charged facts stated in the indictment and the applicable statutory provisions presuppose different constituent elements or legal evaluations and the like, and are inconsistent with each other and reveal incompatibility, to such a degree as to affect the determination of guilt or innocence or to impede the exercise of the defendant's right of defense [2] a case in which, while prosecuting the defendant for a violation of the former Personal Information Protection Act, the prosecutor stated in the indictment as the charged facts that, knowing the circumstance that A had not consented, the defendant demanded of B, who was in charge of the work of processing personal information of mobile telecommunication subscribers, "to look up A's telephone number using the telecommunication company's lookup system and then tell it to him," and thereby received that information from B, and stated "Article 71, subparagraph 1, Article 17(1) 2, etc." of the same Act as the applicable statutory provisions, where different interpretations of the content stated in the indictment are possible, so that the intent of the institution of the public prosecution is unclear and the exercise of the defendant's right of defense may consequently also be impeded, and thus the court below, in order to clarify the matters in dispute, should have requested the prosecutor to clarify and, once the intent of the institution of the public prosecution became clear accordingly, should have examined whether the constituent elements of the crime were satisfied in accordance therewith and then determined guilt or innocence, and accordingly the determination of the court below, which found the charged facts guilty without taking such measures, involves misapprehension of legal principles and failure to exhaust deliberations
Summary of the holding
[1] 불고불리 원칙상 법원은 검사의 공소제기가 없으면 심판할 수 없고 공소가 제기된 사건에 한정하여 심판해야 하므로, 검사는 공소장의 공소사실과 적용법조 등을 명백히 함으로써 공소제기의 취지를 명확히 해야 한다. 공소장에 기재된 공소사실과 적용법조가 서로 다른 구성요건이나 법률적 평가를 전제로 하는 등 조화롭지 않고 부정합성을 드러내어 유무죄의 판단에 영향을 미치거나 피고인의 방어권 행사에 지장을 초래할 정도에 이른 경우, 법원으로서는 형사소송규칙 제141조에 따라 검사에게 공소사실 및 적용법조의 문제점이나 오류 등에 관한 석명을 구하여 공소장을 올바르게 보완하도록 한 다음 이에 따라 충실하게 심리·판단할 필요가 있다. [2] 검사가 피고인을 구 개인정보 보호법(2023. 3. 14. 법률 제19234호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 위반으로 기소하면서, 공소장에 피고인이 갑의 동의가 없다는 사정을 알면서도 이동통신 가입자에 대한 개인정보 처리 업무를 담당하던 을에게 ‘통신사 조회시스템을 이용하여 갑의 전화번호를 조회한 뒤 알려달라.’고 요구하여 을로부터 그 정보를 제공받았다는 공소사실을 기재하고, ‘같은 법 제71조 제1호, 제17조 제1항 제2호 등’을 적용법조로 기재한 사안에서, 공소장에 기재된 공소사실 중 일부와 적용법조에 따르면, 피고인에 대하여 ‘개인정보처리자가 정보주체의 동의를 받지 않고 개인정보를 제공한다는 사정을 알면서도 그로부터 개인정보를 제공받은 사람’을 처벌하는 구 개인정보 보호법 제71조 제1호, 제17조 제1항 제1호 위반죄로 공소가 제기되었다고 볼 수 있는 한편, ‘개인정보를 처리하거나 처리하였던 자가 업무상 알게 된 개인정보를 누설한다는 사정을 알면서도 영리 또는 부정한 목적으로 그로부터 개인정보를 제공받은 사람’을 처벌하는 같은 법 제71조 제5호, 제59조 제2호 위반죄로 공소가 제기되었다고 볼 여지도 있어, 공소장 기재 내용에 관한 서로 다른 해석이 가능하여 공소제기의 취지가 명료하지 않고 그로 인해 피고인의 방어권 행사에도 지장이 초래될 수 있는 경우이므로, 원심으로서는 형사소송규칙 제141조에 따라 소송관계를 명료하게 하기 위해 검사에게 구 개인정보 보호법 제71조 제5호, 제59조 제2호 위반죄와 같은 법 제71조 제1호, 제17조 제1항 제1호 위반죄 중 어느 죄로 공소를 제기하는 것인지 등에 관하여 석명을 구하고, 그에 따라 공소제기의 취지가 명료해지면 거기에 맞추어 범죄구성요건 충족 여부를 심리한 후 유무죄를 판단했어야 한다는 이유로, 이러한 조치를 취하지 않은 채 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 제1심판결을 그대로 유지한 원심의 판단에 구 개인정보 보호법 위반죄의 성립과 석명권 행사에 관한 법리오해 및 심리미진의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제246조, 제254조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송규칙 제141조 / [2] 구 개인정보 보호법(2023. 3. 14. 법률 제19234호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제1항, 제59조 제2호, 제71조 제1호, 제5호(현행 제71조 제9호 참조), 형사소송법 제254조 제1항, 제3항, 형사소송규칙 제141조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger