When the personal data is reported through media, the Personal Information Protection Act(PIPA) should set forth standards for the extent to which this can be be permitted. In this article, I study a post-ex post legislative evaluation of the Personal Information Protection Act and to propose amendments.
 On Korean PIPA, Article 58, excludes Personal information collected or used for its own purposes of reporting by the press, only Chapters 3 to 7 of PIPA, so the provisions of Chapter 9(Supplemental Provisions) and Chapter 10(Penal Provisions) are all applied. Therefore, there is a problem that can be punished as a violation of the PIPA when the public reports for the public interest as well as media reports.
 Article 6 of the EU's GDPR (Lawfulness of processing) recognizes processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller(e). Article 85 stipulates that the Processing and freedom of expression and information should be balanced with the right to freedom of information, and that the application of Chapters 2 to 7 and 9 of the GDPR be excluded for journalism purposes. And the legality of processing in Article 8 of the UK Data Protection Act (2018) further elaborates this. Article 57 of the PIPA of Japan, excludes application, does not impose any obligations on personal information handling business operators for reporting purposes. In addition, the Japanese Public Interest Notified Person Protection Act requires the person making the public interest notification to submit a public interest notification to the Personal Information Protection Commission if there is a concern about violating the PIPA.
 In conclusion, on Korea's PIPA, it is necessary to stipulate that the PIPA is not applied in the case of public interest whistleblower. For this purpose, the provision of personal data should stipulate in Article 17 of the Amendment Act, “in case of reporting facts related to crime or facts related to crime for the purpose of public interest or reporting,”. and It is necessary to expand the exclusion of media coverage in the application exclusion rule of Article 58 to some punishment provisions, and to amend the direction to protect the public interest whistleblower protection law in the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act. At the same time, research should be continued so that relevant laws and regulations can present clear standards so that individual honor or privacy and public interest information can be guaranteed at the same time.
Read full abstract