2. B

Attorney E, F (private ships for defendant B)

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be forfeited from Defendant B.

1. Defendant A

On January 2013, the Defendant came to know of the information of the Busan Coast Guard and the police officer B belonging to the Busan Coast Guard through the introduction of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, working as an investigator belonging to the Busan Coast Guard and a staff member belonging to the Busan Coast Guard. From around that time to April 2014, the Defendant maintained friendship by: (a) informing the Busan Coast Guard of the situation of personnel movement, etc. in the office of the Busan Coast Guard, including the details of personnel movement, while making telephone calls.

On November 2013, the defendant was placed in the Busan District Prosecutors' Office and was in charge of investigation duties under the order of the prosecutor. On April 23, 2014, the defendant started the investigation into Guideri Special Investigation Team at the Busan District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter referred to as "G") on April 23, 2014 and moved out as a support personnel for the execution of search and seizure of G office, etc., and became aware of the plan to search and seize G in advance at the above Special Investigation Team around April 10, 2014.

around 14:21 on April 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received request from B to inquire into whether B is scheduled to search and seize G from the Busan Special Investigation Team of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office; (b) when and where the search and seizure is possible, the Defendant knew that the aforementioned special investigation was an investigation into marine transportation expenses relating to the sinking of the Sewol ferry, and, in light of its importance, was well aware that the Defendant has a thorough obligation to maintain fraud; (c) from April 24, 2014, the Defendant informed B of the fact that he/she was conducting search and seizure of G around 10:0 on April 24, 2014 at the Busan Special Investigation Team of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office. (d) notified B of the fact that he/she was conducting search and seizure of G around 10:00.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as a public prosecutor engaged in duties related to criminal investigation, divulged the facts scheduled to be seized and seized to the prosecution G, who is a secret in the course of performing duties.

2. Defendant B

A. Divulgence of confidential information on April 23, 2014

On September 2013, the Defendant: (a) discovered the investigation trends of the Busan District Public Prosecutor’s Office and the investigation officers affiliated with the Busan Public Prosecutor’s Office, known through mobile phones, and discovered the fact that G is scheduled to be seized and seized from the said Special Investigation Team; and (b) discovered the fact that he/she would be expected to be seized and seized from the said Special Investigation Team.

Around 17:50 on April 23, 2014, the Defendant heard from the Special Investigation Team of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office to “A,” and confirmed that A would be subject to search and seizure of G around 10:00 on April 24, 2014 through text messages, and confirmed that A would be subject to search and seizure of G to Seoul in relation to the investigation. On the same day, around 18:13 on the same day, the Defendant sent text messages from the Busan Coast Police Station Information and Office located in 254-10, Do-dong, Busan Metropolitan City to H as cell phone to “the trends that B will be subject to advance payment and search and seizure of the Shipping Association,” Seoul-UB-Ma, and the special department. Accordingly, the Defendant, as a police official engaged in duties related to criminal information, divulged the scheduled fact of search and seizure of G of the prosecution, who is a confidential official in the line of duty, to H.

B. Divulgence of official secrets on May 2, 2014

On May 2, 2014, the Defendant sent a statement to the Busan Coast Guard Information Office and the office of the Busan Coast Guard Police Station to the head of the J branch office of the branch office of the J branch office of the Busan Coast Guard Station to request the Defendant to verify the details of the yacht boarding of G officers and employees in the Busan Coast Guard.

On the same day, the Defendant sent the above official text message to K to the police at Busan District Prosecutors' Office (the request for cooperation in investigation by the Prosecutor General of Busan District Prosecutors' Office 896 - the request for identification of the reporter of deep-distance water-related leisure activities), and received a request by facsimile, and then sent the above official text message to H on 08:38 of the same day by photographing the above official text message with a camera installed in mobile phones, and then sent it to H on Kakaox on 08:39 of the same day. On 08:39 of the same day, the Defendant sent the text message, "I consider it as having no record of use" to H. Accordingly, the Defendant, who is a police official engaged in duties related to criminal information, divulged the official letter of request for cooperation by the Prosecutor

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Kakakao photographs and the official door requesting cooperation in investigation;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of text messages sent and received by B and H), investigation report (Attachment of the A, B mobile phone details, and text messages), mobile phone photographs, investigation report (Attachment of text messages sent and received by A and B);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal principles concerning facts constituting the crime;

Article 127 of the Criminal Code

1. Selection of a sentence;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant B);

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

1. The punishment to be suspended (Defendant A) and six months of imprisonment;

1. Suspension of sentence (Defendant A);

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of Sentencing)

1. Confiscation (Defendant B);

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

In light of its nature, search and seizure of reasons for sentencing requires high level of secrecy and, if the information is leaked in advance, the purpose of search and seizure cannot be achieved. Moreover, the search and seizure of this case was an important forced investigation to secure objective evidence in the process of the investigation that started and started to resolve suspicions about ship safety through the Sewol ferry sinking case, which caused the former citizens to be exposed to the pain. A state public official who maintains his livelihood with a national tax, requires high level of loyalty and the possibility of criticism against the leakage of official secrets of this case by the Defendants, who are the investigative body, is very high.

However, the fact that all the Defendants have been engaged in public duties for a long time, and that they lose their status as public officials when the suspension of qualification or more punishment is finalized shall be considered together in the sentencing.

The specific grounds for sentencing for each of the Defendants are as follows.

1. Defendant A: The notification of search and seizure information that requires high level of secrecy upon the request of the upper defendant B, the intelligence officer of the Korea Coast Guard, is contrary to the duty of confidentiality of public officials. In light of the nature and importance of the search and seizure investigation of the instant case as seen earlier, there is a little possibility of rash and criticism.

However, it was not easy to expect that the confidential information notified to the upper accused, the intelligence officer of the Korea Coast Guard, will be leaked and transmitted to the G subject to investigation, and in any aspect, it is used for the crime of the upper accused.

In addition, as seen earlier, the circumstances that were the first offender and may be deprived of the position of the state public official upon dismissal disposition are considered.

2. Defendant B: As an information officer of the Korea Coast Guard, he/she obtained the above search and seizure information from the superior Defendant A by requesting the information about the subject, date, etc. of search and seizure, and then notified the information officer’s duty-related crimes to G on the part of the G subject to investigation, resulting in a trouble in the actual investigation. In addition, he/she also notified the prosecution investigation process and the police replies to the G.

Although Defendant B asserted that he acted as a means to obtain high-quality information from G, what is the high-quality information that can be obtained by informing the subject of investigation of search and seizure information in a timely manner? The act of Defendant B who was aware of this part is difficult to be used.

However, as seen earlier, it is the primary offender, and is the most of one family member, has been engaged in public service for a considerable period, and the circumstances that lose the police officer's position were considered in determining the term of punishment.