Not more than the residential public residence time omitted;

2. Omission below the place of registration

Attorney Yang Byung-soo

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant was appointed as a driver of technical level 10 on February 26, 1993, and was promoted for continuous service as a driver of technical grade 10 on April 11, 2007. From July 2005, the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office was executed and the American Prosecutors' Inspection Team was affiliated with the Daejeon Prosecutors' Office, and was in charge of vehicle driving, the arrest of the executor without the type of imprisonment and the investigation into the location of the person. In the immediate service, the Defendant is in charge of carrying out the guard who is arrested to the Daejeon Correctional Institution or handing over documents, such as the labor officer's direction, the release letter, the execution letter, the detention warrant, etc., to the Daejeon Correctional Institution.

1. On October 23, 2012;

From October 18, 2012 to the 19th day of the same month, the Defendant informed of the investigation status, such as whether a search and seizure warrant was issued on the cell phone text messagess, etc. of the persons involved in Kim Man-kak, and then notified of the investigation status to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office (19:0 on a daily basis to the 19:0 on the 19:0 on the 19th day following the same month, the Defendant was allowed to enter the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, and the Defendant was allowed to freely enter the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office at the time of the 2012 Police Agency, and the seizure and seizure warrant was issued on October 24, 2012 to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office (20:0 on the 19:0 on the 19:0 on the 19:0 on the 20th day and then on the 19th day on the 20th day on the 20th day on the 210th day after the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office.

2. On December 26, 2012: (i) the divulgence of the fact that a warrant of search and seizure is issued;

From December 24, 2012 to December 26, 2012, the Defendant informed of the investigation situation, such as whether to issue a search and seizure warrant with respect to black boxes installed on the vehicle of △ operated in Korea, a person who was an applicant for the refusal of the above education professional screening process,” and then, notified of the investigation situation on December 26, 2012. The Defendant divulged the search and seizure warrant issued on the same day at the office of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office as a person in charge of on duty and kept on the same day at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and confirmed the fact that the warrant was issued on December 26, 2012: ① around 38, the Defendant divulged the fact that the above search and seizure warrant was issued on the same day at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s office, and thereby, the Defendant divulged the fact that the warrant was issued on the part of official duty. The Defendant disclosed the fact that the above search and seizure warrant was acquired on the part of official duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1 . 김▣▣에 대한 검찰 진술조서

1. A copy of each protocol of statement made by the police with respect to Dosan, Kim ①

1. Each report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 127 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. The assertion;

The defendant is in charge of driving duties at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office and is not directly engaged in investigation-related affairs, so the fact of issuing a search and seizure warrant that has been divulged to Kim ① cannot be said to be a confidential information that the defendant has learned in the course of performing his duties.

2. Determination

Although the defendant did not directly take charge of, or assist in, the affairs related to the search and seizure warrant of this case, if the defendant discovered the office of the above search and seizure warrant issued by using the fact that he/she could freely access the office of the general public on duty, it constitutes a secret that he/she becomes aware of in the course of performing his/her duties.

Reasons for sentencing

The act of divulging confidential information learned in the course of performing duties as a state public official who requires high level of loyalty itself is subject to criticism. The time of the crime in this case was sufficiently predicted that the crime in this case was committed by the persons suspected of the crime in question, who had destroyed evidence while denying the crime, and those who had become aware of the fact that the seizure and search warrant was issued by the defendant was attempted to destroy the evidence before the execution of the seizure and search. The defendant was working for 20 years at the prosecutor's office and could interfere with the investigation through the above process.

On the other hand, the crime of this case appears to have not been premised on any consideration that the defendant was unable to observe upon the request of Kim ① in connection with the admission of the university of food, and that the criminal act of this case does not seem to have interfered with the investigation of the actual related case due to the criminal act of this case, there are favorable sentencing factors such as the defendant's failure to perform his duties in good faith for 20 years, and the fact that the defendant had faithfully performed duties as a public official in charge of inspection for 20 years, and that there are favorable sentencing factors such as the above sentencing factors. The punishment of this case is determined as ordered in consideration of each of the above sentencing factors.