[2] The case holding that the above leakage does not constitute a threat to the function of the National Intelligence Service’s normal information collection activities, etc. on the grounds that only the time when the inspection and investigation took place regarding the National Intelligence Service’s internal inspection and investigation, and the fact that some of the members belonging to the inspector and the personal information have been divulged does not cause harm to the function of the State or the National Intelligence Service

[2] The case holding that the above leakages do not constitute a threat to the function of the National Intelligence Service’s normal information collection activities, etc., on the grounds that only the time when the inspection and investigation was conducted in connection with the National Intelligence Service’s internal inspection and investigation, and the fact that some of the members belonging to the inspector and the personal information were divulged, does not cause harm to the function of the National Intelligence Service’

2. Article 17(1) of the Staff of the National Intelligence Service Act provides that "All employees shall not disclose any confidential information which comes to their knowledge in the course of office and even after retirement, and Article 32 of the same Act provides that "any person who violates the provisions of Article 17 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won". Here, the requirement is one of the requirements, and it is not known to the outside, and it is worth protecting as a substantial secret. On the other hand, the above crime does not protect the secret itself, but is not to protect the secret itself, but to protect the interests of the National Intelligence Service employees in danger by the infringement of the duty of confidentiality, namely, to protect the function of the country threatened by the leakage of the secret (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1343, Jun. 13, 2003). The scope of the secret should be limited to the minimum necessary to expand the scope of the freedom of expression or the right to know to the maximum extent possible.

However, according to the facts charged in this case, on November 28, 2002 and December 1, 2002, the Kim Young-il National Assembly member belonging to the Republic of Korea, and Lee Young-young opened a briefing session in order, and opened the so-called National Intelligence Service-related materials, stating that "the National Assembly member and the National Assembly member belonging to the Democratic Party" were false information dissemination, the National Assembly member and the National Intelligence Service made an accusation against their National Assembly members to the prosecution as defamation, etc. In addition, the National Intelligence Service reported the 16th presidential election, such as its own inspection and investigation into the source of the above materials, and it was difficult to view that the National Assembly member and the National Assembly member reported the 20th presidential election to the National Assembly member in advance of the National Assembly, and that it was difficult for the National Assembly member to have become aware of the 16th presidential election, and that there was concerns about privacy by the National Assembly member and the National Assembly member's internal inspection and investigation by the National Assembly member of the National Intelligence Service.

Meanwhile, according to Article 3 of the National Intelligence Service Act, the duties of the National Intelligence Service are as follows: (a) collecting, preparing and distributing foreign information and domestic security information (the anti-government uniform, counter-terrorism, counter-terrorism, and international criminal organization); (b) security duties for documents, materials, facilities, and regions belonging to national secrets; (c) insurrection and foreign aggression; (d) offenses in the Military Criminal Act; (e) offenses in insurrection; (e) offenses in violation of the Military Secret Protection Act; (c) investigations into offenses prescribed by the National Security Act; (d) planning and coordinating information and security duties related to the duties of the NIS staff; (e) investigations into offenses related to the duties of the NIS staff; and (e) inquiries into the fact by the lower court. However, the National Intelligence Service inspected the personal information of the NIS at the time of the examination level; (e) there is no difference in parts of the above contents disclosed by the Defendant; and (e) there is no likelihood of directly affecting the performance of the duties of the NIS as a result of the disclosure of information by the Defendant; (e.g., motive and purpose of the NIS’s inspection and inspection of information.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of confidentiality under Article 17 of the Staff of the National Intelligence Service Act. Thus, the court below judged that the defendant's disclosure of confidential information under Article 17 of the Staff of the National Intelligence Service Act constitutes a secret under Article 17 of the Staff of the National Intelligence Service Act and committed an unlawful act that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and such unlawful act affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)