The defendant shall be innocent.

The prosecutor's appeal concerning the portion not guilty among the judgment of the first instance is dismissed.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. Defendant (as to the conviction in the judgment of the court of first instance)

(i)misunderstanding of facts;

The list of candidates for the professor Group(10) is not defined or classified as confidential by itself, but is not a final and conclusive content, and the list of evaluators is scheduled to be disclosed as matters necessary for the tender, and does not correspond to “official secrets” that are worth protecting as substantial secrets in order to achieve the purpose of Nonindicted Party 1’s construction. However, the first instance court erred by misunderstanding facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

【Unjustifiable sentencing

In light of the reflection of the accused, criminal power, economic interest, and inspection of the list of evaluators by negligence not intentional but negligent, etc., the punishment sentenced by the first instance court (fine 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (as to the acquittal of the first instance judgment)

In light of the fact that the defendant directly managed the real estate from the sales contract to the route of the registration of ownership transfer of the pertinent real estate, the actual owner of the instant real estate is the defendant, and the actual owner of the instant real estate is the defendant, and the title trust of the said real estate is harmed by mistake of fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

Article 21 of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation Act provides that “No current or former executive officer or employee of the Corporation shall divulge any confidential information he/she becomes aware of in the course of performing his/her duties, and Article 67(2) provides that a person who discloses confidential information in violation of the aforementioned provision shall be punished.” The aforementioned provision aims at protecting the function of Nonindicted 1 Corporation threatened by divulgence of confidential information. As such, the “confidential information learned in the course of performing his/her duties” in this context must be in fact worth protecting it as confidential in order to achieve the objectives of Nonindicted 1 Corporation. The mere fact that the materials held by the Corporation are disclosed to the outside in an improper manner without following the procedures prescribed by statutes or the bylaws of Nonindicted 1 Corporation, is likely to undermine the public confidence of Nonindicted 1 Corporation, the function of Nonindicted 1 Corporation may not be deemed to be threatened.

Examining the record in accordance with such legal principles, the list of candidates for the professor group who the Defendant perused to Nonindicted Party 2 is comprised of the name of the candidate for the professor group among the technical evaluation members for Nonindicted Party 1's IT center's transfer to ○○○ and construction project evaluation members, classification by the number of recommending persons, the affiliation of each professor, position, and duties. Thus, it is difficult to deem that such disclosure is threatened with the function of the State or Nonindicted Party 1, such as the securitization of mortgage-backed claims, housing finance credit guarantee, and reverse annuity mortgage guarantee, and it is difficult to view that the aforementioned list is practically worth protecting the aforementioned list to achieve the objectives of Nonindicted Party 1. (It is difficult to readily conclude that the leakage of the above list is anticipated by the leakage of the foregoing list, unnecessary time and fairness of the tender results and the occurrence of unnecessary costs for the relevant IT center's transfer to the IT center, the occurrence of obstacles to the fair progress of the technical evaluation work, the prejudice to the fairness of bidding, and the fear of infringing on the privacy of the candidates).

Ultimately, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. In the first instance judgment convicting this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake

The first instance court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the evidence, such as a copy of the copy of the register of real estate submitted by the prosecutor, alone, is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant had completed a registration under a title trust agreement in his/her own name, under the name of Nonindicted 3, his/her birth, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the facts charged have been proven.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is conducted, and this part of the facts charged is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor. Accordingly, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, and there is no reason to believe that there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor. Thus, the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the prosecutor's appeal concerning the part not guilty among the judgment of the court of first instance is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the court of first instance erred by misunderstanding the facts among the judgment of first instance, the judgment of first instance is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without further review, and this part of the judgment of first instance is again decided after pleading as follows.

No defendant may divulge any confidential information he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duties as an executive officer of Nonindicted Corporation 1.

피고인은 2014. 7. 중순경 공소외 2로부터 ‘내가 잘 아는 △△대학교 공소외 4 교수가「공소외 1 공사 IT센터 ○○이전 및 구축사업」의 기술능력평가위원장이 되게 해 달라’는 취지의 부탁을 받고, 위 사건 외 교수 공소외 4를 평가위원장으로 하고, 사건 외 □□□□□□대학교 컴퓨터 공학과 교수 공소외 5, ◇◇◇대학교 정보보호학과 교수 공소외 6, △△대학교 자연과학연구소 연구교수 공소외 7, ☆☆대학교 경영학과 교수 공소외 8, ▽▽▽▽대학교 IT학부 겸임교수 공소외 9, ◎◎◎대학교 정보통신대학원 겸임교수 공소외 10, ◁◁◁◁대학교 정보보호학과 교수 공소외 11, ▷▷대학교 컴퓨터학부 교수 공소외 12, ♤♤대학교 정보보호경영학과 교수 공소외 13 등을 평가위원 후보로 한다는 내용의 ‘교수그룹 평가위원 후보자 명단(10인)’을 작성한 후 같은 해 8. 5. 15:00경 서울 (주소 생략) ♡♡♡♡♡♡♡ 1층에서 공소외 2에게 위 명단을 열람하게 함으로서 직무상 알게 된 비밀인 「공소외 1 공사 IT센터 ○○이전 및 구축사업」의 입찰정보를 누설하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant disclosed confidential information that he came to know in the course of performing his duties as an executive officer of Nonindicted Party 1.

Judgment

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the legal principles and evidence stated in the grounds for reversal as seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Kim Sung (Presiding Judge)