개인정보보호제도와 「부정청탁 및 금품 등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률」의 갈등과 조화방안에 대한 고찰 - ‘외부강의등 사전신고․허락’ 규정을 중심으로 -

The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act(hreinafter referred to as the “Solicitation Prohibition Act”) regulates that if professors and journalists conducts a lecture, presentation, or contribution related to his/her duties or requested due to de facto influence arising from his/her position or responsibilities at a training course, promotional event, forum, seminar, public hearing, or any other meeting(hereinafter referred to as "outside lecture, etc"), he/she shall report, in advance, in writing, the details of the request for the outside lecture, etc., to the head of the relevant institution. If a head of a relevant institution deems an outside lecture, etc., reported by a professors and journalists may hinder fair performance of duties, the head of the relevant agency may restrict the outside lecture, etc.(hreinafter referred to as the “the report and restriction on the outside lecture, etc."). The report and restriction on the outside lecture, etc. It is reasonable that this system will be abolished because of violating the constitutional proportionality test. First, the 'adequacy of means' is unlikely to be accepted. The professor presented the findings at the seminar, public hearing, or any other meeting in the form of a lecture, presentation, or contribution, and this activities is he/her inherent duties to strengthen their professional area and perform a higher level of education. There is no empirical evidence that the advance report to the head of the relevant institution and gain permission for such activities regard as appropriate measures to prevent the illegal entrance, illegal performance assessment and illegal treatment of students. Similarly, there is no evidence that to control journalists in advance to participate in debates or seminars is appropriate measures to ensure integrity in the report. In addition, "the report and restriction on the outside lecture, etc." applicable to professors and journalists, is more likely to be constrained academic freedom, freedom of the press and the general behavior liberties by infringing on right to control personal information and privacy, rather than contributing to their fair job performance. Therefore, by the principle of proportionality, "the report and restriction on the outside lecture, etc." applicable to professors and journalists is advisable to be abolished because it does not comply with the standard of 'adequacy of means' and 'minimum infringement of the right' Nevertheless, even if "the report and restriction on the outside lecture, etc." applicable to professors and journalists inevitably be maintained, the following points should be complementary to minimize conflicts of the right to control personal information and privacy. First, significantly reduce the range of the personal information to be collected, such information shall not accumulate a long period of time. The following should be clearly defined for the purpose and the scope for the use of personal information collected by. Meanwhile, a head of a relevant institution must immediately destroy the personal information in the contents of the report when they check the activities reported are not contrary to the Solicitation Prohibition Act. In addition, the retention period of personal information collected through this system should be minimal. A head of a relevant institution shall have specific regulations for use of the scope of the personal information collection, management methods, minimum retention period, method of destruction in the personal information treatment directive. By doing so the personal information collected will not be exploited as a means to limit the coverage of the activities of journalists and professor's academic activities.