The court below found Defendant 1 not guilty on the facts charged of offering of a bribe by giving cash to Defendant 1, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant 1 provided cash to police officers in addition to the two weeks, and the facts charged pertaining to this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence without making proper deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 127 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who is or was a public official shall divulge a secret in the course of performing his/her duties pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes. Article 127 of the same Act provides that a person who is or was a public official shall not disclose a secret in the course of performing his/her duties, but shall include not only the matters specified as a secret in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes, but also the matters of considerable benefits that the Government, a public office, or a citizen may not be disclosed from an objective and general point of view. However, this crime must be recognized as having the value of protecting it as a secret. This crime is not only to protect the secret itself, but also to protect the interests of a country threatened by infringement on the duty of confidentiality of a public official, i.e., protecting the function of a country threatened by the divulgence of a secret (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do

As to the facts charged in this case against Defendants 2 and 3, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the above Defendants on the ground that all of the contents of the investigation records which the above Defendants allowed them to peruse and copy to Defendant 1 are merely about the suspected facts, personal information of the suspect and the victim, degree of injury to the victim, or the content of the instructions to handle the suspect's personal data, etc., and it is insufficient to view that the contents are disclosed to the public that there are personal information that is likely to impede the purpose of investigation by infringing the security and confidentiality of the investigation, or that there is a personal information that is likely to infringe upon an individual's privacy, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to secrets in the crime of disclosure of official duties or secrets.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)