[2] In a case where a former employee of the National Intelligence Agency was prosecuted for violating Article 17 of the National Intelligence Service Employee Act by delivering a recording report and a recording tape, etc., prepared by seeking communication on the trend of political power between large enterprises and the press reporters, etc., and communication on the provision of political funds, etc., the case holding that the part concerning the process of collecting the contents of the materials disclosed by delivering the above Do government agency’s materials constitutes “confidential acquired in the course of performing its duties,” and that the content of the Do government’s materials itself does not constitute the above secrets

Examining the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the judgment below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the attempted crime of conflict with the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of conflict with another person in the crime of conspiracy or conflict as alleged.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Act on the Staff of National Intelligence Service by Defendant and Prosecutor

Article 17(1) of the Staff of the National Intelligence Service Act provides that “All employees shall not disclose any confidential information learned while in office and even after retirement.” Article 32 of the same Act provides that “Any person who violates the provisions of Article 17 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won.” Here, the requirement is one of the requirements, which requires that it is not disclosed to the outside and is worth protecting as a substantial secret. Meanwhile, the above crime is not to protect the secret itself, but to protect the interests of the National Intelligence Service employees in danger by infringement of the duty of confidentiality, namely, the interests of the State threatened by infringement of the duty of confidentiality. The scope of the secret should be limited to the minimum necessary to expand the scope of the citizens’ freedom of expression or the right to know to the maximum extent possible (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do547 Decided November 28, 2003).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's disclosure of confidential information of this case by delivering the data of the Do government office to co-defendant 1 under the above Act includes the part concerning the process of collecting the data of the Do government office, i.e., the head of the team of the information collection organization as the head of the National Security Planning Agency, together with other employees of the Ministry of National Security Planning, and the recording tape was prepared and kept on the basis of the above recording tape. The contents of the Do government office's own data of this case, i.e., the head of Samsung Group's non-indicted 1 and the head of the Central Library at the time of Samsung Group's non-indicted 2, which did not interfere with the disclosure of confidential information of the National Intelligence Service's official duty and the possibility that the defendant's disclosure of confidential information of information of the Do government office was not likely to interfere with the normal function of the National Intelligence Service's collection of information of the Do government office's official duty.

In addition, according to the records, the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Staff of the National Intelligence Service against the defendant include the act of disclosing secrets learned in the course of performing his duties by informing the co-defendant of the collection process of the contents of the data of this case, and the defendant also has a defense and defense in the record. As such, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the principle of improper interest or modification of indictment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant, in the measure of punishing the defendant as guilty of this part of the facts charged.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)