“No ownership of customer information”… Hair salon owner cleared of charges for deleting ‘Shop-in-Shop’ information

Unauthorized deletion of customer information from tablet PC
Sent to prosecutors on charges of ‘obstruction of business’
Prosecutors “There is a ‘handover’ clause in the contract.
… “It is difficult to cite the victim’s claim of ownership.”

The owner of a beauty salon who was handed over to the prosecution on charges of taking a tablet PC containing customer information of a nail shop located within the store was acquitted.

On the 18th of last month, the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. A, a hair salon owner in his 30s, who was sent on charges of property damage and obstruction of business.

Last January, Mr. A was accused of taking a tablet PC containing the customer information of Mr. B, a nail shop manager who was in his hair salon, without permission and deleting the information.

Mr. A denied the charges. It was claimed that the tablet PC in question was a public item and not Mr. B's personal property. They refuted that the reason customer information was deleted was because Mr. B opened a new nail shop near the beauty salon and used the existing business name. Mr. A said, “Mr. B was siphoning off our store’s customers to his new store and ignoring legitimate requests to correct the theft of the business name, so we were forced to delete the information.”

The prosecution determined that Mr. A was not guilty. The prosecution explained the reason for non-indictment by saying, “In the contract written by the two people together, there is a clause that says, ‘All customer information managed upon termination of the contract will be handed over to Mr. A.’” and “Considering that Mr. B was also aware of this clause, it is difficult to say that the deleted customer information belongs to Mr. B.”

Attorney Heo Seong-guk of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “For a crime of damage to property to be established, there must be recognition that another person’s property is being infringed upon.” He added, “Rather, Mr. B was actively demonstrating that it was he who violated the obligation to maintain confidentiality in the contract.”

Digital Content Team

[View full article]
“No ownership of customer information”… Hair salon owner who deleted ‘Shop-in-Shop’ information not guilty (Shortcut)