(b) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

(c) Disclosure of official secrets

2. (a) B

3. (a) c. C.

Law Firm Han

Attorney Seo-sik (for the defendant B)

Law Firm LBBS Partners

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

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

Among subparagraph 1 of the seized evidence, one opphoneS shall be confiscated from Defendant A.

All appeals by Defendant B and C and by Prosecutor against Defendant B and C are dismissed.

A. Defendants

1) Defendant A (the form of punishment and unfair practices)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B

A) misunderstanding of facts

The defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the attendance of witnesses by the victims and spread public opinion that the victims did not have I, so all of the judgment of the court below is different from the fact.

B) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant C (De Facto misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles)

Information such as the real name and schedule of examination of the witness offered by the defendant does not constitute secrets in the line of official duty, and there was no intention to divulge secrets in official duty.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants (Defendant C: the suspended sentence) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of fact

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, that is, the defendant has repeatedly posted the real name of the victims and the schedule of examination of witness in the above reading room more than 10 times, and among them, the defendant has attached the title "the list of false statements of the victim's witness in the trial" to the "list of the victim's witness in the trial." Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Whether the official secrets are confidential

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim's real name and schedule of examination of witness is recognized as the need for protection, which is a requirement for official secrets. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The court of first instance in charge of the case, which is a pastor of the E church with 1,30,000 members, was tried in the name of the victims who were the believers of the same church and major witnesses on the grounds of their privacy and personal protection, etc. The victims’ witness examination was also conducted in private. In such a situation, not only the real name of the victims but also the specific information by the date of the examination of the witness was disclosed to persons other than the persons concerned with the case, such as what he knows or what he knows, there is a risk of hampering the court’s functions of trial by physical and psychological interference with the witness attendance of the victims.

② The Defendant’s assertion that it is not confidential in the line of duty is difficult to accept, as its independent opinion, because there are a large number of regulations regarding the safety of victims in the examination procedure.

2) Intentional intent

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently be found to have had the intention to divulge official secrets. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① 피고인 C는 2018. 7. 18. 서울중앙지방법원 2018고합522 사건(I이 피고인임)이 성폭력 사건임을 인지하였으면서도 법원 코트넷 사건검색의 증인 부분을 사진으로 촬영한 후 피고인 A의 휴대전화로 보내 주었고, 피고인 A으로부터 "뒤에 실명 다 나오. 네~ ㅋㅋ, 땡큐!!"라는 F 문자메시지를 받고도 "수고하세요"라는 문자메시지를 보냈을 뿐이고, 어떠한 의문이나 문제제기를 하지 않았다.

② 피고인 C는 2018. 7. 30. 피고인 A으로부터 "서울중앙지방법원 2018고합522 요거 증인들 이름 저번처럼 사진 한번만 찍어 보내주겠어? 미안 바쁜데ㅜㅜ"라는 F 문자메시지를 받고, 동일한 방법으로 이를 촬영하여 피고인 A에게 전송하였을 뿐이고, 성폭력 사건의 피해자들 실명 및 증인신문일정을 계속해서 요구하는 이유를 전혀 물어 보지 않았다.

C. On the assertion of unfair sentencing:

1) Defendant A ( Both appeals)

A) Unfavorable circumstances

Although Defendant A, as a court official, was well aware of the risk of his behavior, he was provided with personal information of the victims by using the same fees in a trust relationship and posted them to the information and communication network with strong spreading power, thereby resulting in the following injury.

① The victims were very difficult after they closed the victims of sexual assault from I, and after the withdrawal from the E intersection, they were sold to the visitors from the church, and there was a victim by intimidation. Among them, some of the victims was under the treatment of counsel with respect to the exemption and the surgery due to indeption and indeption disorder after having filed a complaint against I. Moreover, the victims were exposed to their family members, relatives and siblings at the time of the first instance trial against I. In such circumstances, the victims seems to have very heavy and deep shocks caused by the divulgence of this case.

② In particular, at the W Broadcasting Station on May 5, 1999, 11. BW Broadcasting Station: (a) there was an accident in which new teachers visited an employee at a broadcasting station and assaulted an employee and suspended broadcasting; and (b) there were many believers around the victim’s residence; (c) so, it is difficult to measure the fear and suffering of victims and their family members suffering from disclosure of real name and the date of examination of witness.

③ In fact, victims and their families were asked questions to confirm whether they are victims of ties from their relatives and their neighbors, directors were asked to avoid this, and the Ethrhys were placed in the Ethys, making it impossible to use the subway stations used every day, etc.

B) favorable circumstances

① The Defendant agreed with the victims during the trial, and expressed his wish that the victims do not want to be punished.

② The Defendant is against the instant crime, and is the first offender.

C) Sub-determination

In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be somewhat unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable, while the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2) Defendant B (Appeals by Both Parties) and Defendant C (Appeals by Prosecutor)

There is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and further, even if the lower court comprehensively takes into account the circumstances and various conditions of sentencing as revealed in the grounds for sentencing as well as the records, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment was too light or light of the reasonable scope of discretion. Accordingly, the above assertion by Defendant B and the Prosecutor is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the appeal by the defendant A is well-grounded, the part against the defendant A among the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

(No appeal against Defendant A by a prosecutor is well-grounded, but so long as the judgment of the court below is accepted by Defendant A and the decision of the court below is reversed, the prosecutor’s appeal shall not be dismissed separately

Since both appeals filed by Defendant B and C and those filed by the Prosecutor against Defendant B and C are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Grounds for the Judgment Re-written against Defendant A】

Criminal facts and summary of evidence.

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 71 Subparag. 5 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 59 Subparag. 2 (the fact that personal information has been provided for illegal purposes), Article 71 Subparag. 6, and Article 59 Subparag. 3 (the fact that personal information has been leaked without legitimate authority) of the Personal Information Protection Act, and Article 50(2)2 and Article 24(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the fact that the identity of a victim, etc. has

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments imposed on a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act heavier than punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

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

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judges O Chang-gu

Judges fixed succession;