collateral to criminal proceedings with the People's Court of Fengxian District, Shanghai Municipality for the damage to public interests. The defendant, Li Kaixiang, had no objection to the basic criminal facts and determination of the nature charged in the prosecution, and voluntarily pleaded guilty to accept his/her punishment. The defender suggested that the defendant, Li Kaixiang, should be given a lighter punishment and requested the court to suspend his/her sentence based on such defense opinions as the defendant, Li Kaixiang's first offense, truthful confession of the crime after appearance before the court and willingness to plead guilty to accept his/her punishment. The defender also argued that the procuratorial authority did not verify the authenticity of more than 81 million pieces of data involved in the case. Decision On August 23, 2021, the People's Court of Fengxian District, Shanghai Municipality made the criminal judgment [2021] Hu 0120 Xing Chu No.828, holding that the defendant, Li Kaixiang, should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of three years for the crime of infringing citizens' personal information, granted suspension of sentence for three years, and fined CNY10,000; the guilty tools seized on record should be confiscated; Li Kaixiang should make a public apology for his/her infringement of citizens' personal information in national news media, delete the "face score detection" software and related codes, delete the related photos stored on the Tencent Cloud web disk, delete the relevant citizens' personal information stored on the "MEGA" web disk, and cancel the QQ number used for infringement. After the judgment of the first instance, the defendant raised no protest or appeal; the judgment has taken effect. Reasons for the Decision The effective judgment of the court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the "face information" stolen by the "face score detection" software involved in this case falls within "citizens' personal information" under the Criminal Law. The court believed after the trial that "face information" belongs to citizens' personal information stipulated in Article 253-1 of the Criminal Law; the use of the "face score detection" hacker software to steal software users' "face information" and other citizens' personal information belongs to the behavior of "illegally obtaining citizens' personal information by theft or otherwise" and should be punished in accordance with the law. The main reasons are as follows: firstly, "face information" and other clearly listed types of personal information have obvious "identifiable" characteristics. The Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Infringement of Citizens' Personal Information (the "Interpretations") list the types of citizens' personal information; although "face information" is not listed separately, other forms of personal information are allowed to be identified other than those listed in accordance with the law. The definition and enumeration of citizens' personal information in the Interpretations are consistent with the identification standard for citizens' personal information in the Civil Code and other legal provisions, that is, "identifiability" is the identification standard for personal information, emphasizing the possibility of direct or indirect identification between the information and the subject of information. "Face information" belongs to bio-metric information that cannot be modified and is unique. The face corresponds to the natural person one to one. Without combining other information, the face can be used to directly identify a specific natural person. Therefore, "face information" is highly "identifiable". Secondly, the identification of "face information" as citizens' personal information follows the principle of unity of law and order. The Civil Law and other advanced laws protect "facial information" as citizens' personal information. Article 1,034 of the Civil Code stipulates the definition and specific types of personal information; the Personal Information Protection Law further includes "facial information" in the protection category of personal information. If the infringement of "facial information" constitutes an infringement of the personality rights and interests of natural persons, the actor shall bear the corresponding civil liability or administrative or criminal liability. Thirdly, the use of the "face 2