Personal Information Protection Act Violation Lawyer
Personal Information Protection Act Violation Lawyer | What to do when a data incident becomes a legal case
A violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (개인정보 보호법) rarely stays in one lane. The PIPC can impose administrative fines and corrective orders on a company for a data breach or unlawful processing, while the same conduct can simultaneously be referred to police or prosecutors as a criminal matter against the individuals responsible (개인정보 보호법 제71조부터 제75조까지). Many people first learn they are a target when they receive a request for a written statement from PIPC or an attendance notice from a police cyber investigation unit, not a formal indictment. Understanding which provisions apply to your specific conduct — negligent leakage versus intentional misuse, for example — determines whether you are facing a fine, a criminal record, or both.
Personal Information Protection Act Violation | Why one incident can mean two separate cases
The Act splits sanctions into administrative fines handled by the PIPC and criminal penalties handled by the courts. These two tracks run on different standards of proof and different timelines, and a favorable outcome in one does not automatically resolve the other.
Administrative fines (과태료/과징금)
The PIPC can levy a 과태료 for procedural violations such as failing to obtain proper consent or not appointing a data protection officer, and a separate, often much larger 과징금 for unlawful use or disclosure of personal data, calculated with reference to related sales revenue (개인정보 보호법 제64조의2). These are civil-administrative in nature, so there is no criminal record even if imposed, but the amounts can be substantial for a company handling large volumes of data.
Criminal penalties (형사처벌)
Separately, provisions such as Articles 71 through 73 impose imprisonment or criminal fines for specific acts — for example, processing sensitive information without consent, providing personal data to a third party without authorization, or failing to take required security measures resulting in a leak (개인정보 보호법 제71조, 제73조). Whether a given incident is treated as criminal often turns on intent, the sensitivity of the data, and whether harm actually resulted.
Why coordination between the two matters
Statements made to PIPC investigators during the administrative inquiry can later surface in a parallel police investigation. Treating a PIPC written-statement request as a low-stakes formality, when in fact a criminal referral is being considered in parallel, is one of the more common mistakes we see.
Personal Information Protection Act Violation | Breach notification duties and how failing them adds exposure
Beyond the underlying data mishandling, the Act imposes its own notification and reporting duties once a leak is discovered, and failing to meet those duties is a separate source of liability layered on top of the original incident.
Notice to affected individuals
Once a personal data controller becomes aware of a leak, it must notify the affected individuals of what happened, what data was involved, and what measures are being taken, without undue delay (개인정보 보호법 제34조). Delay in notification, even where the underlying leak was accidental, can itself be treated as an aggravating factor in a PIPC sanction.
Reporting to the PIPC or KISA
Depending on the scale of the breach, the controller may also be required to report the incident to the PIPC or the Korea Internet & Security Agency. How and when this report was filed is frequently the first thing an investigator checks, because it establishes the timeline against which the company's later conduct is measured.
Internal investigation before external disclosure
Before any public notice or regulator report goes out, it is worth conducting an internal fact-finding review — what data was actually exposed, how, and to whom — since the content of that first notification is difficult to walk back later and inconsistent statements between the notice, the regulator report, and later investigation testimony create their own legal risk.
Personal Information Protection Act Violation | Which acts actually carry criminal, not just administrative, risk
Not every data-handling mistake is a crime. Criminal liability under the Act generally attaches to intentional or grossly negligent acts involving unauthorized collection, use, provision to third parties, or destruction of personal data, rather than to every technical compliance gap.
Unauthorized provision to a third party
Providing personal data to a third party beyond the scope of the original consent, or receiving such data knowing it was unlawfully provided, is one of the most commonly prosecuted acts under the Act (개인정보 보호법 제71조 제1호, 제17조). This covers situations ranging from an employee selling customer lists to a company sharing user data with an affiliate without proper consent.
Processing sensitive or unique identifying information without a legal basis
Health information, political views, and resident registration numbers receive heightened protection, and processing them without a specific statutory basis or separate consent carries its own criminal exposure distinct from ordinary personal data (개인정보 보호법 제23조, 제24조). Small businesses that casually collect resident registration numbers for membership sign-up are a recurring example.
Failure to take security measures leading to a leak
Where a controller failed to implement the technical and administrative safeguards required by law and that failure caused a leak, criminal liability can attach even without any intent to misuse the data (개인정보 보호법 제73조 제1호, 제29조). The defense here typically focuses on whether the specific safeguard alleged to be missing was actually required for the type and volume of data at issue.
Personal Information Protection Act Violation | Company, executive, or employee — who bears the liability
A PIPA case rarely targets only the company. The Act's joint penalty provision can reach the business owner or representative even for acts committed by an employee, unless the company can show it exercised reasonable supervision.
The joint penalty clause for business owners
Where an employee or agent commits a violation in the course of performing duties for the business, the Act allows a fine to be imposed on the business owner as well, unless the owner proves that reasonable care and supervision was exercised to prevent the violation (개인정보 보호법 제74조). This 양벌규정 structure means a company's compliance record — training logs, access control policies, audit history — becomes central defense evidence, not just paperwork.
Individual employees facing personal exposure
An employee who personally accessed, copied, or transmitted data outside their authorized scope can be prosecuted individually regardless of what happens to the company, particularly where the act was for personal gain such as selling customer information. Whether the employee acted within the scope of assigned duties, and whether the company's internal system permitted or should have prevented the access, is often the central factual dispute.
Third-party processors and outsourcing arrangements
A company that outsources data processing to a vendor is not automatically shielded if the vendor mishandles the data; the outsourcing company retains supervisory obligations under the Act (개인정보 보호법 제26조). Disputes over which party bears responsibility for a breach often hinge on the specific contractual terms and whether contractual oversight duties were actually performed.
Personal Information Protection Act Violation | From incident to resolution
Whether the trigger is a self-discovered leak, a user complaint, or a PIPC/KISA inquiry, the first step is establishing exactly what happened before any statement is given to a regulator or investigator.
Where required, notice to affected individuals and reports to the PIPC or KISA are prepared and filed within the applicable timeframe, coordinated with legal review to avoid inconsistent statements later.
The PIPC investigates through document requests and on-site inspection, and before imposing a 과징금 or 과태료, gives the party subject to sanction an opportunity to submit an opinion or attend a hearing (개인정보 보호법 제64조).
If the PIPC or police determine a criminal provision may have been violated, the matter is referred for investigation separately from the administrative sanction, and the individual may be summoned for questioning as a suspect.
A PIPC fine can be challenged through an administrative appeal or lawsuit, while a criminal referral proceeds through police investigation and prosecutorial review toward a decision on indictment, each requiring separate strategy.
Personal Information Protection Act Violation | How fees are typically calculated
Fees generally reflect whether the matter involves only a PIPC administrative fine review, or a parallel criminal investigation as well, since the latter requires additional preparation for police or prosecutor interviews.
Representing a company at the PIPC fact-finding and hearing stage is priced differently from representing an individual employee or executive facing personal criminal exposure, and fees are structured accordingly when both are involved.
If a PIPC decision is challenged through an administrative appeal or an administrative lawsuit seeking to reduce or cancel a fine, this is generally billed as a distinct stage from the initial investigation representation.
Costs such as expert review of technical logs, document translation, or forensic analysis of the data incident are billed separately as actual expenses incurred.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Personal Information Protection Act Violation | Self-Check Before You Respond
1️⃣ If You Just Discovered a Data Leak
- Have you identified exactly which data fields and how many individuals were affected?
- Has more than a few days passed since discovery without notifying affected individuals?
- Have you determined whether this incident meets the threshold requiring a report to the PIPC or KISA?
- Have employees been instructed not to alter or delete relevant logs before they are reviewed?
2️⃣ If You Received a PIPC Document Request or Attendance Notice
- Does the notice specify whether you are being asked to respond as the company or as an individual?
- Have you reviewed what documents or logs are being requested before submitting anything?
- Is there a deadline stated on the notice, and have you calendared it?
- Have you considered whether your response could later be used in a separate criminal referral?
3️⃣ If You Are a Business Owner or Executive
- Can you show documented employee training and access-control policies predating the incident?
- Was the employee involved acting within the scope of assigned duties, or outside it?
- Do you have records of prior audits or compliance reviews relevant to the alleged violation?
4️⃣ If You Are an Individual Employee Under Investigation
- Did your access to the data fall within your authorized job function?
- Do you have a record of instructions or approvals for the action being questioned?
- Have you been asked to attend as a witness, or explicitly as a suspect?
