Samsung Electronics labor and management agreed to withdraw all civil and criminal cases, including complaints and accusations, filed during the dispute. Inside the company, however, various misunderstandings, such as alleged "management interference," are spreading over why police are continuing their investigation even though both sides agreed to drop the cases. But because a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act is neither a crime prosecuted only upon complaint nor a crime that cannot be punished against the victim's will, police are in principle required to continue their investigation regardless of the withdrawal agreement.
According to the industry on the 23rd, within Samsung Electronics, as police continued their investigation despite labor and management agreeing to drop all complaints and accusations, misunderstandings have been spreading that "the company may be involved in the investigation even after the agreement." However, legal experts said the police investigation proceeds based on the nature of the alleged Personal Information Protection Act violation, not on whether the complaint is maintained.
On the 20th, at the Gyeonggi Regional Employment and Labor Office, Samsung Electronics labor and management prepared a plan to adjust performance bonuses and agreed to withdraw various civil and criminal cases, including complaints and accusations, that had been filed during the conflict. With the union tentatively agreeing to wage negotiations and holding off on a strike, management signaled it had no intention to seek punishment.
Samsung Electronics had asked authorities to investigate two cases related to the unauthorized use of employee personal information. On Mar. 31, Samsung Electronics confirmed that, in a corporate group messenger chat room of a specific department, an Excel list containing the department names, full names, employee numbers, and union membership status of dozens of people had been shared. After suspicions arose that the union had compiled and distributed a so-called "blacklist" of nonmembers, the company filed a criminal complaint with police on the 9th of last month on suspicion of violating the Personal Information Protection Act.
Samsung Electronics also confirmed that an employee had unauthorizedly viewed employee information more than 20,000 times over about one hour through two internal systems. After determining that the collected information was passed to another employee inside the company in a file, the company proceeded with an additional complaint on the 16th of last month.
On the 8th, police seized and searched servers at Samsung Electronics' Giheung campus and identified who accessed the information. Then on the 18th, they conducted an additional raid to obtain the messenger and email records of an employee working at the Pyeongtaek campus.
Even if management withdraws the complaint, the investigation does not stop immediately. That is because a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act is not defined as a crime that cannot be punished against the victim's will. Such crimes are those for which prosecutors cannot bring charges if the victim says they do not want punishment. Assault, intimidation, and defamation are representative examples.
The same applies to alleged violations of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In March 2001, the act was revised to change penalties for unlawful labor practices and other violations from crimes that cannot be punished against the victim's will to ordinary crimes. If it is confirmed that personal information of union members and nonmembers was collected or used without authorization or that participation in industrial action was coerced, criminal proceedings can proceed separately from any labor-management agreement.
However, management's stated lack of intent to seek punishment may be taken into account in the course of the future investigation, prosecutorial charging decisions, and the court's judgment. While withdrawing a complaint does not immediately mean the investigation ends, whether the parties reached an agreement can be a factor considered in criminal proceedings.
The issue, however, is that union membership status constitutes sensitive information. The Personal Information Protection Act classifies ideology and beliefs, union or political party membership and withdrawal, political views, and health information as sensitive information and applies stricter processing requirements than for general personal information. If union membership status was collected or used without the data subject's consent, whether it violates the Personal Information Protection Act could be at issue.
In legal circles, there is a view that the agreement between labor and management to withdraw complaints should be distinguished from the criminal procedures of investigative authorities. Labor and management may withdraw complaints and accusations to resolve their conflict, but whether the Personal Information Protection Act was violated is a matter for investigators to determine separately. During the police probe, they are expected to check not only the person who directly accessed personal information but also whether there were related individuals who ordered the collection or use of the information or who received it.