Utilization of Administrative Informationand Protection of Personal Information

이민영 가천대학교 법학연구소 2011 가천법학 Vol.4 No.3

Current discussions on the protection of personal information were first raised in the realization process of the administration procedure which purports to secure fairness, transparency and trustworthiness of public service and to guarantee of citizen’s rights. The administrative procedure aims to achieve democracy, appropriateness, and efficiency in public service by promoting participation of general public in administrative affairs, so it is essential that the general public gets access to the administrative information held by public offices. However, as it becomes possible for an individual to provide administrative information to offices or to get access to it, and/or even to disclose certain administrative information to general public, it is required that proper legal restriction of those uses which by their characters contain private information. Therefore, previous system of administrative information disclosure and protection which functioned under each related procedures, came to be re-established as a separate set of regulations on the treatment of administrative information in the information society. Some of the background concerns are that development of information technology which established the electronic government increases the possibility of leakage of digitalized private information by making individual information to be managed electronically as a whole, and that disclosure and sharing of administrative information which is the fundamental principle of the electronic government may, by its own character, conflict with protection of personal information. Accordingly, it is required to apply and enforce the regulation in a way that does not cause conflict among the Constitutional Right to knowledge, administrative demand and protection of personal information. In this regard, this paper studies appropriateness of restriction on the right of information subjects with respect to personal information as a reverse function of first, sharing of administrative information by the computer system and networks through which speed and accuracy of communication of information is secured, geological and time limitation is overcome and paperwork is reduced, and secondly, of the collection of image information by CCTV for the purpose of crime prevention and police force workload reduction. While information privacy is the right to privacy as an object of corresponding categories and power related to personal data and interpreted as a positive means to organize form a harmonious relationship between legal protection and lawful utilization, it is crucial to form legitimate the legal relationship of rights and obligations free from the fixed idea of denial and disbelief about personal information manager such as government or private companies first of all. As a result, it is required to set up a thick layer of protection to be protected and rationally use to be used for establishing institutional framework on redefining information privacy. This article, in this basis, argues the amendment of EGA and IPA with information-related law and data protection principles for constitutional legislative system of information privacy.

행정정보의 활용과 개인정보의 보호

Lee, Min-Yeong 가천대학교 법학연구소 2011 가천법학 Vol.4 No.3

개인정보의 보호에 관한 종래의 논의는 행정의 공정성·투명성·신뢰성의 확보 및 국민권익의 보장을 목적으로 하는 행정절차의 실현과정에서 제기된 것이다. 행정절차는 국민의 행정참여를 도모하여 행정의 민주화·적정화·능률화를 꾀하려는 데 그 목적이 있는 바, 여기서 행정청을 포함한 공공기관과 대등한 위치에 당사자로서의 국민을 설정하기 위해공공기관이 보유한 행정정보의 활용은 필수적이라 할 수 있다. 그러나 관련기관에 행정정보를 제공하거나 이용토록 하기도 하고 행정정보를 직접 국민에게 공표하도록 하면서 오히려 그 개념상 개인정보를 포함할 수밖에 없는 행정정보의 활용에 대한 적절한 제한설정이 요구되게 된 것이다. 그리하여 적절한 행정절차에 부차적으로 기능하던 기존의 행정상 정보공개 및 정보보호 제도가 정보사회를 수렴하는 행정정보에 관한 규범으로 체계화되기에 이르렀다. 그와 같은 배경에는 전자정부의 출범요인인 정보기술의 발전은 개인정보를 통합 관리할 수 있게 함으로써 오히려 디지털화된 개인정보의 유출 가능성을 증폭시키고 있다는 점과 전자정부의 구현원리이자 운영원칙인 행정정보의 공개 및 공동이용은 대상정보의 성격상 개인정보보호와 상충될 수 있다는 점이 관여한다. 따라서 헌법상 알 권리·행정수요·개인정보의 보호가치가 모순되지 아니하도록 관련 법규범의 조화로운 적용과 실천적인 운용이 요청된다고 할 것이다.이와 같은 관점에서 이 글에서는 컴퓨터시스템과 네트워크를 활용한 방법으로 정보전달의 신속성·정확성 확보, 지리적·시간적 한계의 극복, 종이문서사용의 절감 등의 효과를 유발하는 행정정보의 공동이용 및 범죄예방이라는 공익적 목적을 수행하기 위하여 폐쇄회로텔레비전을 운용함으로써 경찰인력의 소모를 감쇄시킬 수 있는 화상정보의 수집이라는 행정정보의 활용이 지니는 역기능으로서 개인정보에 관한 정보주체의 권리제한의 적합성에 관해 살펴보기로 한다. 지난 해 5월 5일부터 시행된 「전자정부법」은 행정정보 공동이용의 범위를 확장하고 있는 반면 지난 9월 30일부터 시행된 「개인정보 보호법」은 영상정보처리기기의 운용에 관한 제한을 설정하면서도 정보주체의 권리보장을 명시하고 있기에 상호 충돌된 가치에 있으므로 그 향방이 주목될 뿐 아니라 두 쟁점 모두 개인정보를 포함하는 행정정보 활용에 관한 것이기에, 결국 헌법상 일반원칙에 부합하고 개인정보의 보호에 관한 국제기준에 부합하는지에 대하여 실질적으로 되짚어보아야 하기 때문이다. 이 글은 이와 관련하여 위 두 법률의 상호관련성에서의 바람직한 개정방향의 단초를 짚어보아 개인정보자기결정권 보장에 관한 헌법합치적 법제도를 타진해본다. Current discussions on the protection of personal information were first raised in the realization process of the administration procedure which purports to secure fairness, transparency and trustworthiness of public service and to guarantee of citizens rights. The administrative procedure aims to achieve democracy, appropriateness, and efficiency in public service by promoting participation of general public in administrative affairs, so it is essential that the general public gets access to the administrative information held by public offices. However, as it becomes possible for an individual to provide administrative information to offices or to get access to it, and/or even to disclose certain administrative information to general public, it is required that proper legal restriction of those uses which by their characters contain private information. Therefore, previous system of administrative information disclosure and protection which functioned under each related procedures, came to be re-established as a separate set of regulations on the treatment of administrative information in the information society. Some of the background concerns are that development of information technology which established the electronic government increases the possibility of leakage of digitalized private information by making individual information to be managed electronically as a whole, and that disclosure and sharing of administrative information which is the fundamental principle of the electronic government may, by its own character, conflict with protection of personal information. Accordingly, it is required to apply and enforce the regulation in a way that does not cause conflict among the Constitutional Right to knowledge, administrative demand and protection of personal information. In this regard, this paper studies appropriateness of restriction on the right of information subjects with respect to personal information as a reverse function of first, sharing of administrative information by the computer system and networks through which speed and accuracy of communication of information is secured, geological and time limitation is overcome and paperwork is reduced, and secondly, of the collection of image information by CCTV for the purpose of crime prevention and police force workload reduction.While information privacy is the right to privacy as an object of corresponding categories and power related to personal data and interpreted as a positive means to organize form a harmonious relationship between legal protection and lawful utilization, it is crucial to form legitimate the legal relationship of rights and obligations free from the fixed idea of denial and disbelief about personal information manager such as government or private companies first of all. As a result, it is required to set up a thick layer of protection to be protected and rationally use to be used for establishing institutional framework on redefining information privacy. This article, in this basis, argues the amendment of EGA and IPA with information-related law and data protection principles for constitutional legislative system of information privacy.

행정정보의 공동이용에 대한 법적 쟁점의 검토

최승필 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 2017 행정법연구 Vol.- No.51

새로운 기술혁명사회에서 새로운 재화 및 서비스의 출현으로 인해 정부부처를 비롯한 지방자치단체와의 관계에서 횡적거버넌스가 중요시되고 있으며, 그 기반으로 행정정보의 공동이용이 새로운 이슈로 부각되고 있다. 행정정보 공동이용의 개념은 다의적이며, 법적인 쟁점을 다투는 주요대상은 협의의 의미로서 정보의 공동이용으로 개인정보와 일반 공중에게 공개되지 않은 정보를 대상으로 한다. 한편 행정정보의 재산성에 대해서는 행정기관이 보유하고 있는 정보는 공공재적 성격을 가지고 있지만 공물이라고 보기는 어렵다. 전자정부법 제36조 제1항은 행정정보공동이용의 근거규정이다. 그리고 이 법 제37조는 행정정보를 행정기관간 일대일 교환방식이 아닌 데이터베이스 방식으로 공동 이용할 수 있도록 하는 근거가 된다. 그러나 행정기관간 핵심적인 행정정보의 자유로운 교환은 정책적 우위를 선점하기 위한 요인과 타인에 의한 정책오류가능성의 검증에 대한 우려로 인해 여전히 활성화되어 있지는 않다. 행정기관이 보유하고 있는 정보의 핵심은 각 개인에 대한 사항으로 개인정보이다. 따라서 행정정보의 공동이용은 개인정보보호와 충돌한다. 개인정보보호법은 수집된 정보의 목적 외 사용을 원칙적으로 금지하고 있다. 그러나 예외적으로 법률에 따라 또는 법률에서 정한 소관업무의 수행을 위해 해당 개인정보의 목적 외 이용이 필수적인 경우 등에서는 개인정보의 활용이 가능하다. 그러나 행정은 끊임없이 이용정보의 확대를 요구하는 반면, 개인은 자기정보결정권이 침해되지 않기를 바란다. 따라서 행정의 효율성과 개인의 정보보호는 여전히 긴장관계에 있다. 개인정보보호를 위해서는 정보수집 및 활용상 절차적 통제가 필수적이다. MOU 방식을 통한 정보의 공동이용은 가장 빈번히 이용되는 형태이다. 그러나 몇 가지 문제점이 지적된다. 첫째, MOU 자체의 구속력이 불명확하다. 둘째, 개인정보를 단순히 MOU를 근거로 타 행정기관에 제공하는 것은 개인정보보호법에 위반될 수 있다. 셋째, MOU를 통해 정보를 제공받고 활용하기 위해서는 정보를 제공받는 기관이 개별적으로 각 개인의 동의를 받아야 한다는 점이다. 따라서 특정영역을 전제로 설치와 활용에 있어 법적근거를 갖춘 행정정보를 데이터베이스화한 플랫폼을 검토해볼만 하다. 물론 플랫폼이 대상으로 하는 정보는 원데이터를 포함한다. 개인정보주체의 권리보장은 행정정보로서 개인정보활용의 전제이다. 전자정부법 제42조는 행정정보로 활용하기 위해서는 정보주체의 사전동의를 받을 것을 원칙으로 하고 있다. 개인정보의 자기결정권의 최대발현은 개인정보의 활용거부이다. 그러나 오늘날 정보는 공공재라는 면에서 비례의 원칙을 통해 그 범위를 정할 수밖에 없다. 정보관리의 소홀 그리고 이로 인한 유출 및 누설에 대한 벌칙규정의 강화도 행정정보의 공동이용에 있어서 제도적 기반이 된다. 따라서 정보의 취급 및 관리ㆍ이용에 대한 내부컴플라이언스도 중요하다. 횡적거버넌스의 달성은 협력적 행정의 기반이며, 그 시작은 행정정보의 공동이용에 있다. Due to the emergence of new goods and services in new technological revolution society, horizontal governance became important in a relationship with local governments including government ministries, and for its basis, sharing administrative information is magnified as a new issue. The concept of sharing administrative information is polysemous, and the legal issue is information sharing with a meaning of consultation, targeting personal information and information that hasn't disclosed to the general public. Information that administrative offices have has characteristic of public goods, but it is hard to be considered to be a government issue. The first clause, Article 36 of Electronic Government Act is the basic regulation of administrative information sharing, and Article 37 of the act is the basis of the joint use of administrative information not in the way of one to one exchange between ministries, but in the way of a database. However, because of the worries about factors to preoccupy political superiority and about the examination of policy error by others, free exchange of core administrative information between ministries is still not activated. The core of the information that administrative agencies have is an issue about each person, which is personal information. Therefore, sharing administrative information conflicts with personal information protection. Act on the Protection of Personal Information prohibits the use of collected information with purposes other than its original purpose in principle. However, exceptionally, according to an act or for conducting a matter under the jurisdiction that was designated by the act, if the use of the personal information for other purpose is essential, utilizing the information is possible. However, since there's a possibility that it can also be limited to use it, the efficiency of the administration and personal information protection are in strained relations. To protect personal information, controlling information collection and process in use is essential. Information sharing in the form of MOU(Memorandum of Understanding) is the most frequently used one. However, there are some problems pointed out. First, MOU itself has unclear binding force. Second, presenting personal information to other administrative agency only by MOU may be against the Act on the Protection of Personal Information. Third, to receive and use the information through MOU, the agency that receives the information must get an agreement from each person. Therefore, with a certain field as a premise, making information sharing platform having a legal basis for installation and use is worth consideration. Guaranteeing rights of the subject of the personal information is the premise of using it as administrative information. Article 42 of Electronic Government Act made it a rule to get prior consent from the subject to use it as administrative information. The maximum expression of rights of self-determination for the personal information is rejecting to use the information. However, in terms that the information is public goods, set the scope through proportionality is necessary. Reinforcing penal provisions on the carelessness of managing information and spill and leakage due to it can be the institutional basis for sharing administrative information. Therefore, internal compliance for handling, managing and using the information is important. Achieving horizontal governance is the basis of cooperative administration, and its start is up to sharing administrative information.

行政情報公開制度의 法的 問題

李龍雨(Lee Yong-Woo) 한국비교공법학회 2004 公法學硏究 Vol.5 No.1

What is the most basic and important thing to realize people's right to know can be said to allow the administrative information of government to be properly disclosed through application for it. But the fact is that information related to the individual's benefit and protection of the law is much included in administrative information. The results of the rapidly developing information and communications revolution is occasioning new legal discussion such as the problem of the infringement of human rights arising from the distribution of information and especially the problem of the legal protection of individual information including the holding of information. The Administrative Information Disclosure Law is intended to meet people's right to know and implement open adminstration through the transparency of public administration by disclosing to people the administrative information handled by government. In response to it, the Individual Information Protection Law is operated for the purpose of protecting individual information from public agencies. According to the current Administrative Information Protection Law, the principle is to disclose all administrative information to people and to disclose individuals' information by dividing them into the information subject to disclosure and non-disclosure. But this requirement is all-encompassing and give rise to the controversy over its interpretation. It is what criterion of judgement to apply in case there occurs the conflict between the public interest and the private interest. As both of them is the problem of the basic right stipulated in the Constitution, it is desirable to coordinate them through the legislation of the limitation on each of their basic rights. Even so, it is not right to put restriction only on the basic right of either of them without due regard for that of the other. The principle of weighing the benefit and protection of the law may not be the absolute criterion in coordinating between the benefit and protection of the law for administrative information disclosure and that of private information disclosure but is thought to be the primary solution. Accordingly, it is necessary to primarily apply the principle of weighing the benefit and protection of the law for both of them but if difficult to apply it, to apply the principles capable of supplementing it. Government should disclose its administrative information to people in order to realize democracy, implement protection through the raising of transparency and realize people's right to know guaranteed in the Constitution. But government should not make a decision over disclosure/non-disclosure of its administrative information at its own arbitrary discretion but present the clear-cut criterion for judgement over it. The Administrative Information Disclosure Law revised this time is thought to reflect and resolve several problems that have been raised for the years. But In relation to the protection of private information, it has still not resolved the several problems raised in Para. 6 of Subsec. 1 of Sec. 9 of the Law providing for the information subject to non-disclosure in the Administrative Information Protection Law . Its revision is prompted as soon as possible, but it is necessary to approach the method that can achieve the original purpose of the administrative information disclosure system without neglecting the protection of private information by presenting the criterion for more specific and reasonable disclosure and non-disclosure in the lower laws and regulations at the current point in time.

행정정보 공동이용 법제의 개인정보보호 정합성 연구

이민영 한국법제연구원 2010 법제연구 Vol.- No.38

Public administration could by all means be defined as superintendence of governmental function under the official prestige of administrative agency and it is suggested that the legal order must have normal standards effective to the change in public administration environment due to information technology. Moreover an independent nation tend to nowadays expand the range of regulating and adjusting social life to realize the constitutional ideology of welfare state. From the viewpoint of such legislative conditions, there should be satisfied with systemic foundation, democratic procedure, and customer-centered policy in public administration. And also personal data protection as well as security management will be the core limitations crucial to E-government. As everyone knows, personal data protection, that is to say guarantee of information privacy, is bound to contradict the utilization of administrative information including personal data of data subject. Resultingly should the illegality be relatively reviewed the utilization of administrative information to serve the common good without infringement of information privacy. In EGA(Electronic Government Act), legislative system of administrative information co-using must be the interface between beforehand prevention and post-factum remedies of infringement of information privacy. In other words, it is necessary to collect personal data enough almost to meet the demand of utilization administrative information for E-government for public interests. So then EGA is enacted by the provisions allowing for beforehand prevention and post-factum remedies of infringement of information privacy. The probability is that the legal value of administrative information co-using will conflict with that of information privacy of data subject and intensify the ideological conflict most of all. Consequently speaking, it is essential for regulations on the co-used bounds of administrative information to be prescribed substantially to abide by ‘statute reservation principle’ or ‘rule of law’ in EGA. Besides will the supplementation for consent acquisition procedure and administrative control system be the matters calling for prior settlement and amendment cornerstone to stabilize the laws and regulations related to EGA by organic mediation of information-related legislations tuned to Personal Data Protection Act. Public administration could by all means be defined as superintendence of governmental function under the official prestige of administrative agency and it is suggested that the legal order must have normal standards effective to the change in public administration environment due to information technology. Moreover an independent nation tend to nowadays expand the range of regulating and adjusting social life to realize the constitutional ideology of welfare state. From the viewpoint of such legislative conditions, there should be satisfied with systemic foundation, democratic procedure, and customer-centered policy in public administration. And also personal data protection as well as security management will be the core limitations crucial to E-government. As everyone knows, personal data protection, that is to say guarantee of information privacy, is bound to contradict the utilization of administrative information including personal data of data subject. Resultingly should the illegality be relatively reviewed the utilization of administrative information to serve the common good without infringement of information privacy. In EGA(Electronic Government Act), legislative system of administrative information co-using must be the interface between beforehand prevention and post-factum remedies of infringement of information privacy. In other words, it is necessary to collect personal data enough almost to meet the demand of utilization administrative information for E-government for public interests. So then EGA is enacted by the provisions allowing for beforehand prevention and post-factum remedies of infringement of information privacy. The probability is that the legal value of administrative information co-using will conflict with that of information privacy of data subject and intensify the ideological conflict most of all. Consequently speaking, it is essential for regulations on the co-used bounds of administrative information to be prescribed substantially to abide by ‘statute reservation principle’ or ‘rule of law’ in EGA. Besides will the supplementation for consent acquisition procedure and administrative control system be the matters calling for prior settlement and amendment cornerstone to stabilize the laws and regulations related to EGA by organic mediation of information-related legislations tuned to Personal Data Protection Act.

행정기관의 정보수집과 정보의 제공

김성원(Kim, Sung-Won) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2015 圓光法學 Vol.31 No.3

All administrative actions must be performed as adequate grounds. To do this, collection and analysis of related information is essential before the administrative decision. Therefore, administrative investigation is not only essential for administrative decision but also broadening its range to face the fact the administrative territory is now expanding. But at the same time, we should not neglect that fact that persons' privacy or their rights and freedom can be easily violated. In addition, information of administrations may also be provided to the public. Information activity by administrative agency can be divided to a collection and a provision of information. In this paper, a survey conducted by the administration to review the legal issues in information collection. Also examined the legal issues associated with providing information for the citizens. This paper is organized as follows; Chapter Ⅰ. The purpose of the study Chapter Ⅱ. Information Collection of Administrative Agency Chapter Ⅲ. Information Provision of Administrative Agency Chapter Ⅳ. Summary and conclusion

경찰기관 정보공개 처분의 실태와 시사점 - 중앙행정심판위원회의 재결 분석을 중심으로 -

신관우 사단법인 한국안전문화학회 2023 안전문화연구 Vol.- No.21

The purpose of this study is to guarantee the citizen's right to request information disclosure by illuminating the actual situation of illegal or unreasonable disclosure of information by police agencies that perform the duties of maintaining public peace and order. This study examines the information disclosure procedures of public institutions and administrative judgment, which is a means of dissatisfaction with police dispositions, and examines the actual status of illegal or unjust information disclosure dispositions by police agencies through the analysis of 22 rulings of the Administrative Appeals Commission. Policy suggestions were made after reviewing the implications. When a citizen who is guaranteed the right to know requests information disclosure to the police agency, the police agency and the person in charge of information disclosure must comply with the information disclosure procedures and methods in accordance with the law and decide whether or not to disclose information. If a person requesting information disclosure is dissatisfied with the disposition of information disclosure by the police agency, he/she may request an administrative adjudication to the Administrative Appeals Commission. The Administrative Appeals Commission, which received the request for administrative adjudication, reviews and decides on the illegality or injustice of the information disclosure disposition of the police agency. In 2021, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission ruled citing or partially citing 22 cases regarding illegal or unreasonable police agency information disclosure dispositions. The implications derived from this analysis are as follows. First, there is a misunderstanding in the application of legal principles of information disclosure laws as some police agencies are refusing to disclose information by ‘without revealing specific reasons for non-disclosure’ or ‘misjudging information subject to disclosure or disclosure’. In addition, some information disclosure managers of police agencies did not comply with the procedures set forth in the Information Disclosure Act and violated them. In addition, some insufficient matters were confirmed in the management of re-disposal according to the purpose of the administrative ruling adjudication of the police agency. Based on the matters reviewed above, the proposals for the disposition of information disclosure by police agencies can be summarized as follows. First, it is necessary to collect and analyze cases of illegal and unfair rulings by police agencies every year, to produce a casebook of administrative judgment rulings on police information disclosure, and to prepare a system for regular education. Second, it is necessary to examine whether disciplinary responsibility exists for those who have violated the duty of good faith or the duty to comply with the law, which was revealed through the ruling by the Administrative Appeals Commission citing the disposition of illegal or unreasonable information disclosure by the police agency. Third, it is necessary to establish a management and supervision system that can fulfill the duty of redistribution stipulated by law according to the purpose of the ruling specified in the disposition of illegal or unreasonable information disclosure by the police agency.

정보매체의 규제조직에 관한 법적 연구

이민영 한국공법학회 2008 公法硏究 Vol.36 No.3

As advent of information environment shift shapes up with the progress of IT(Information Technology) accompanied by digital convergence and ubiquitous computing, nowadays it is essential systematically to cope with state functions related to electronic information including public administration. Therefore should the political settlement and positive enforcement of social fluctuation be a criteria and traction for establishing 「Informationsordnung(information order)」 on account of paradigm shift in governmental structure to governance system suitable for accomplishing informational affairs of public administration, because what contains the core value by actualizing national purpose and constituting legal relationship is nothing but information in 「Informationsgesellschaft(information society)」. On that ground, this study investigates 「Informationsverwaltung(public administration of information)」 focused upon regulatory organization of information media in favor of inquiring into the fundamental truth maintaining principle of administrative law. Such is the viewpoint from 「Informationsverwaltungsrecht(administrative law dealing with issues of public administration related to information)」. To deal with this theme, this study analyzes typical pattern holding issues of copying with digital convergence from unitive viewpoint of legal thesis on operation and organization in public administration. Consequently, this treatise reaches conclusion that regulatory organization of converging broadcast with telecommunication should be directed to an administrative commission belonging to a president with relevant independence to function and authority of media regulation. Synthetically speaking, it stands to reason that the regulatory jurisprudence of information media abide by the rules setting the goal at 「erhebliche Rechtsmäßigkeit der Verwaltung(substantial constitutionalism embodied by the ‘rule of law’ on administration)」 for the sake of public interest. From this angle of vision, these rules would penetrate Informationsverwaltungsrecht with no proof corroborative more than of media regulation. 오늘날 정보사회에서 사회변동을 가치지향적인 질서체계로 편입하여야 하는 법학의 역할은 중요하며, 특히 현대 복리국가에서 행정 분야에 있어서는 국가의 개입에 관한 탐색이 중요한 비중을 차지한다. 이와 같은 측면에서 정보매체에 있어서도 공익 목적상 그 제한이 요구되고 그만큼 그 한계가 설정되어야 하는 것이 법치행정의 원리에 타당한 실천적 과제임을 부인할 수 없다. 통신방송융합이라는 정보환경에 직면하여 규제작용의 적정성을 담보할 수 있는 권한적 배분이 조직법적으로 상응해야 함은 정보질서의 법적 순연화라 할 수 있다. 이 글에서는 이러한 관점에서 통신방송융합기구의 바람직한 위상을 「정부조직법」을 위시한 행정조직법의 논리적 분석과 함께 개편방안으로 제시되는 유형을 이에 상응하게 검토하기로 한다. 이를 위하여 우선 현행 방송위원회가 독립행정청이라는 점을 논구한다. 결국 정보매체의 규제행정에 있어서도 규제의 적정성을 담보하는 데 법치주의의 관철을 요한다. 전통적인 행정조직법적 이론을 용해하지 않으면 행정조직법정주의라는 대원칙이 깨어질 수 있기 때문이다. 이는 통신방송융합기구의 창설에 있어서도 다를 바 없다. 따라서 일관되고 체계성을 갖춘 정책의 구현으로 규제집행의 목표가 법의 타당성과 실효성을 확보할 수 있는 실천적 측면이 조직법적으로 수용되어야 할 것이다.

위임입법의 측면에서 살펴본 개인정보보호법제의 문제점 - 「개인정보의 기술적·관리적 보호조치 기준」 고시 및 정보통신망법을 중심으로 -

이해원 ( Haewon Lee ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學論集 Vol.23 No.1

개인정보 보호 분야의 일반법인 「개인정보 보호법」이 2011년 제정되었음에도 불구하고 사회 각 분야별로 개인정보 보호를 규율하는 개별법이 산재하여 있고, 이에 따라 추진체계도 분산되어 있는 상황이다. 개인정보보호법제의 정비가 요원한 현실에서 차선책은 현행 일반법-개별법 체계의 틀 안에서 법적 문제점을 발굴하고 이를 개선해나가는 것이다. 정보화 사회를 넘어 IoT(Internet of Thing)으로 대변되는 초연결사회로 진화함에 따라 네트워크에서의 개인정보 보호를 규율하는 「정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘정보통신망법’)이 개인정보보호법을 대신하여 사실상 일반법으로 기능하고 있다. 정보통신망법은 수범자가 준수해야 할 기술적·관리적 조치에 관하여 법령이 아닌 「개인정보의 기술적·관리적 보호조치 기준」고시(이하 ‘보호조치 고시’)에 세부 사항을 규정하고 있는데, 수범자가 위 고시를 위반할 경우 침익적 행정처분뿐 아니라 형사처벌까지 받을 수 있다. 본고에서는 이러한 위임입법 체계의 적법성을 중심으로 정보통신망법의 문제점을 검토하여, 보호조치 고시의 근거법령이 포괄재위임금지원칙에 위배되고, 보호조치 고시 제4조 제9항, 제4조 제4항이 명확성의 원칙에 위배된다는 점을 지적한 후, 결론으로 정보통신망법의 개선 방안을 제시하고 입법절차적 측면에서 보호조치 고시와 같은 ‘법령보충적 행정규칙’의 사전적·사후적 통제 절차를 신설할 것을 제안한다. Since 「Personal Information Protection Act」(hereinafter referred to as the ‘PIPA’) was enacted in 2011, individual laws that regulate the protection of personal information are scattered in each social sector, and the administrative authorities are also dispersed accordingly. In the reality that the reforming of PIPA and individual laws is troublesome, the next best thing is to find legal problems in the current legal system and to improve them. As the current information society has evolved into a hyper-connected society, the 「Information Communication Network Act」 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ICNA’), which regulates the personal information protection on the network, operates as de-facto general law instead of PIPA. The ICNA delegates 「Public Announcement of Technical and Administrative Protection Measures of Personal Information」 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PIP Announcement’) to stipulate mandatory regulations regarding technical and administrative measures of personal information protection. Both administrative disposition and criminal punishment could be ordered with the violation of PIP Announcement. This article raises the issues on ICNA regarding the legality of such delegation system, contends that such delegation violates not only the non-blanket-redelegation doctrine but also the rule of clarity(especially PIP Announcement article 4.9. and 4.4.). In conclusion, this article suggests the way to remove unconstitutionality of ICNA and PIP Announcement. In addition, this article proposes both ex ante and ex post procedure which could be applicable to enact law-supplementary administrative rule such as PIP Announcement.

IT행정에서 자동화행정행위에 관한 일반적 고찰

김기호(Kim, Ki-Ho) 한국토지공법학회 2019 土地公法硏究 Vol.87 No.-

오늘날의 사회는 과학기술 발달에 따른 산업화, 정보화, 복잡화, 다원화로 인해 국민의 생활환경이 빠르게 변화하고 있다. 행정영역에 있어서도 그러한 환경변화에 대응하여 과학적이고 실용적인 행정체계의 마련이 요구되며, 특히 정보통신기술 활용에 대한 행정법제의 유연한 대응체계 마련이 시급하다. 먼저 통합적 전자행정체계의 올바른 구현을 위하여는 완전자동행정행위에 대해 명시적 규정을 마련하여 법적효력을 부여할 필요가 있다. 그리고 자동행정을 실행하는 프로그램이 머신러닝기술을 적용한 것인지, 딥러닝기술을 적용한 것인지 여부에 따라 각각의 특수성을 고려한 구체적 기준을 마련하여 규율할 필요가 있다. 또한 공정한 데이터의 자동수집이 이루어지도록 데이터의 편향성 방지를 위한 데이터수집 및 범위 등에 대한 객관성 확보기준을 마련하여 이를 공개함은 물론 지속적인 관리기준도 마련되어야 한다. 이와 같이 완전자동행정행위에 법적효력을 부여하고 공정하고 지속적인 관리기준을 마련하여 객관성과 예측가능성이 확보되는 경우에 한하여 이를 전제로 그 기술수준에 따라 제한적으로 허용을 고려해 볼 수 있겠다. 행정절차법 제15조는 송달문서의 효력발생시점을 ‘송달받을 자에게 도달’로 규정하고 있고 동법 제21조 처분의 사전통지는 ‘당사자 등에게 통지’라고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 ‘당사자에게’의 의미를 대상적 관점으로 한정할 것인지 장소적 관점까지 확대하는 것이 타당한지가 문제이다. 동법의 제정목적이 행정과정에서 국민의 행정참여 및 국민의 권익보호라는 취지에서 본다면 처분문서 등이 당사자에게 전달된 때 즉 실질적인 지배권내에 들어간때로 개선하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 마찬가지로 전자문서의 경우에도 송신받을 자(수신자)의 수신확인 여부에 따라 효력발생시기를 규정하는 것이 민원사무서비스에 관한 국민의 편의성을 지향하는 전자정부의 목적에 부합하는 것이라고 본다. 현대사회에서 정보통신망을 이용한 공공부문에 대한 접근은 국민에게 매우 중요한 권리이며 이러한 정보접근권은 헌법이론상 표형의 자유에서 거론되는 엑세스권에서 도출되고 또한 지역적, 경제적, 신체적 이유로 차별이 있어서는 안된다. 따라서 전자정부체계의 확립에 관한 기본원칙으로 규율할 필요가 있다. 이에 따라 현행 전자정부법상 누구에게나 평 등한 정보접근권보장 의무화를 전자정부의 기본원칙으로 명시하고 공공기관에 대하여는 유비쿼터스 기반 정보접근체계의 구축을 의무화하여 누구라도 전자적 정보접근성에 제한이 없도록 개선할 필요가 있다고 본다. 정보주체의 개인정보자기결정권은 헌법상 열거되지 아니한 기본권으로서 정보주체가 자신에 관한 개인정보 이용의 범위와 한계 등을 스스로 결정할 수 있는 권리이다. 이러한 개인정보자기결정권은 불가침적인 절대적 권리라기보다는 다른 권리 또는 다른 가치(공동체에서의 공공성)와의 비교형량에 따라 보호범위와 내용에 제한이 있다. 이를 실효적으로 구현하기 위해서는 개인정보의 개념을 구분하고 동의제도의 개선이 필요하다고 본다. 즉 개인정보의 개념을 성명, 주민등록번호, 영상 등 개인을 알아볼 수 있는 정보와 해당 정보만으로는 특정 개인을 알아볼 수 없더라도 다른 정보와 결합하여 알아볼 수 있는 정보로 구 분하고, 전자의 경우 동의제도의 단순화 실질화를 통한 개선과 함께 후자의 경우 개인정보보호위원회의 인증을 통한 사전통제와 옵트아웃 방식을 채택하는 것이 과학기술 발전에 대응하는 유연한 규율체계의 형성에 기여할 수 있다고 본다. 제4차 산업혁명의 상징이라 할 수 있는 컴퓨터 등의 정보통신기술 기반의 인공지능형 자동장치의 출현에도 불구하고 그에 대응하는 법제도적 체계의 미비는 전자행정환경체계의 부조화 내지 불균형을 초래하게 된다. 이러한 현실적 문제에도 불구하고 자동화된 행정행위의 법적규율에 관한 명시적 규정의 마련이 늦어지는 것은 상대적으로 전자정부의 목적에도 부합되기 어렵다고 본다. 따라서 인공지능시대의 도래에 즈음하여 행정법제가 이에 대응할 수 있도록 행정활동에 필요한 공통적인 사항의 체계화 등 선진적 행정절차의 구체적 형성이 시급하다. Due to industrialization, informatization, complication, and diversification following the advances in science and technology, the living environment of people in today’s world is changing rapidly. Administrative services are also required to respond to such environmental changes by establishing scientific and practical administrative systems, with a particular urgency in the development of flexible administrative laws regarding the utilization of information and communication technologies. First, to implement a properly integrated electronic administrative system, it is necessary to specify regulations regarding automated administrative activities and to support them via legal authorities. Another requirement is to create detailed criteria for automated administration programs depending on their characteristics, such as whether they are based on machine learning technology or deep-learning technology. In addition, a standard to ensure the objectivity of data collection, as well as sustained management procedures for the collection of data, must be established and disclosed to prevent bias in the collected data and to ensure a fair automated collection of data. Therefore, given that automated administrative activities are endowed with legal effects and a fair and sustained management standard is created to ensure their objectivity and predictability, completely automated administrative activities can be allowed in a limited manner depending on their technological levels. According to Article 15 of the Administrative Procedures Act, the delivered document becomes effective “upon arrival of the relevant document to the person to receive the service,” and Article 21 of the same law stipulates that prior notice of disposition shall be given “to such parties” referring to people who are affected by the disposition. Then, the issue is whether the meaning of “to such parties” should be restricted to individuals receiving the disposition or should be extended to the location of such individuals. Considering that the legislative intent of the Administrative Procedures Act is to protect the rights of citizens and to ensure their participation in the administrative process, it will be more appropriate to amend the phrase in the law to mean the moment at which the administrative documents or the like are delivered to parties that the disposition of the government agency affects. In the same way, the time at which the recipient of the electronic document confirms the receipt should determine the effectuation of dispositions delivered electronically, in order to meet the objectives of the electronic government, which is to enhance the citizens’ administrative service convenience. Access to the public sector via the information and communication network is a crucial right for people living in the contemporary era. Such a right to access information is deduced from the access rights when discussing the freedom of expression in constitutional theory; there must also be no discrimination on the basis of the region, economic status, or physical condition of an individual. Therefore, such elements must be incorporated into the basic principles on the establishment of the electronic government system. Thus, the Electronic Government Act should be amended to make it mandatory to consider enhancing the right to access information for socially marginalized groups or such groups of people, thereby bringing a related impact to other laws. The right to information self-determination held by data subjects is a basic right not enumerated in the constitution; it guarantees that data subjects may determine for themselves the scope and limitation regarding the use of their personal information. This is not an inviolable and absolute right, and in comparison, with other rights or values (publicness in the community), the scope and details of its protection is limited. To implement this concept in practical terms, the concepts of