Defendant 1 and one other

Deathoe, Kim Jong-soo (prosecution), Lee Jong-han, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho

Law Firm Han, et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Five seized pelbs (Evidence Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 34) shall be forfeited from Defendant 1, respectively.

43,401,310 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the violation of the Presidential Records Management Act except for the violation of the Presidential Records Management Act due to the delivery of the documents listed in No. 9 of the attached Table No. 9 among the facts charged against Defendant 1, the fact that each of the remaining secrets of official duties except for the divulgence of secrets due to the delivery of the documents listed in No. 4 of the attached Table No. 4, the fact that each of the official documents is concealed,

Defendant 2 is not guilty.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal part against Defendant 1 and the summary of the judgment on Defendant 2 shall be published respectively.

Punishment of the crime

[2015Gohap4]

피고인 1은 경찰공무원으로서, 2013. 2. 26.부터 2014. 2. 10.까지(인사명령상 2013. 4. 10.부터 2014. 2. 12.까지) 대통령비서실 ▷▷▷▷비서관실 산하 ○○○○비서관실에 파견되어 행정관으로 재직하면서 청와대 공무원 감찰, 공직자 비위감찰, 인사검증, 대통령 측근 관리 등의 직무를 수행하였고, 2014. 3. 7.경부터 서울★★경찰서 ♥♥♥♥♥♥으로 재직하였다.

Defendant 1: (a) around January 6, 2014, at the office of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office and the office of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the office (hereinafter “documents related to the theory of replacement of the secretary of the office of the secretary of the office of the case”) prepared a report to Defendant 2, who is the secretary of the secretary of the office of the secretary of the secretary of the office of the secretary of the office of the office of the secretary of the office (hereinafter “documents related to the theory of replacement of the secretary of the office of the office of the secretary of the office of the office of this case”). The above documents contain the following contents: (b) “The non-party 1, who was reported through the meeting of the secretary of the office of the office of secretary of the office of the office of residence, shall give instructions to the members of the office of the office of the office;

Defendant 1 delivered the above documents to Nonindicted 3 in the street near Nonindicted 3’s office located in Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address 7 omitted) around that time.

As a result, Defendant 1 disclosed the official secrets under the law.

[2015Gohap159]

피고인 1은 경찰공무원으로서, 2003. 3. 4.경부터 2008. 2. 29.경까지 국무조정실 ♤♤심의관실에 파견되어 행정부 공무원들의 공직기강을 점검하고 공무원들의 비위에 관한 진정 또는 첩보를 확인하여 일선 수사기관에 그 진정이나 첩보를 통보하는 등의 업무를 담당하였다.

서울 중구 북창동 일대에서 ‘□□’, ‘♡♡♡♡’ 등 성매매 영업을 하는 유흥주점을 운영하던 공소외 6은 2002. 5.경부터 서울 강남구 삼성동, 역삼동 일대 건물들을 매수하여 같은 방식의 유흥주점을 운영하였는데, 이른바 룸살롱 황제로 알려진 공소외 9와 경쟁관계에 있었다.

Meanwhile, Nonindicted 9 maintained friendly relations with police officers in charge of controlling illegal entertainment taverns as seen above, but in particular, it was very closely related to Nonindicted 5 among those police officers.

그런데 위 공소외 5는 서울지방경찰청 광역수사대에서 근무하던 중인 2006. 12.경 공소외 6 소유의 서울 강남구 (주소 생략)에 있는 지상 4층, 지하 1층 건물에 입주한 ‘●’ 안마시술소가 성매매 영업을 하고 있고, 그 건물 지하 1층 및 지상 1층의 리모델링 공사가 건축법에 위반되며, 나아가 공소외 6이 운영하는 서울 중구 (주소 2 생략)에 있는 ‘□□’ 유흥주점, 서울 중구 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 ‘□□룸’ 유흥주점, 서울 중구 (주소 4 생략)에 있는 ‘♡♡♡♡’ 유흥주점도 위장 공동사업자를 내세우고 현금 매출을 누락하는 방법으로 소득세, 부가가치세, 특별소비세 등 조세를 포탈하고 있다는 내용 등으로 수사를 하였다. 공소외 6은 위와 같은 공소외 5의 수사로 인해 막대한 경제적 피해를 입게 되자, 공소외 9의 부탁을 받은 공소외 5가 자신에 대한 표적수사를 하고 있다고 생각하게 되었다.

공소외 6은 2007. 3. 내지 4.경 위 북창동 일대에서 유흥주점을 운영하고 있던 공소외 4가 공소외 5의 비리를 많이 알고 있다는 말을 듣고, 유흥주점 인테리어 공사를 하던 공소외 10의 소개로 공소외 4를 만나 공소외 9의 청탁을 받은 공소외 5가 자신이 운영하는 업소들을 표적수사하여 힘들다고 하소연하자, 공소외 4는 공소외 6에게 피고인을 만나 볼 것을 권유하였고, 이에 공소외 6은 그 무렵 서울 강남구 역삼동에 있는 국기원 부근의 ‘▲▲▲’ 유흥주점에서 피고인을 만났다.

In that place, the Defendant received Nonindicted 6’s request from Nonindicted 6 to the effect that “ Nonindicted 5, the Inspector of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, who belongs to the metropolitan investigation group, may not interfere with the investigation of Nonindicted 6, by receiving Nonindicted 5’s request from Nonindicted 9,” and that Nonindicted 6 said that “I would not see about about about about about about about about about about about about about about the investigation of Nonindicted 6,” and that Nonindicted 6 asked Nonindicted 6 again about how to stop the investigation of Nonindicted 5. Since the Defendant had been working in the Prime Minister, he would be able to investigate Nonindicted 5 from the Special Investigation Division of the National Police Agency, so that I would prevent Nonindicted 5’s emotional investigation of Nonindicted 6, by allowing him from the Special Investigation Division of the National Police Agency.”

피고인은 공소외 6으로부터 위와 같은 취지의 청탁을 받고, 2007. 5. 일자불상경 밤 서울 강남구 (주소 6 생략)에 있는 ‘◆◆’ 주점에서 공소외 6으로부터 1개당 시가 약 1,994만 원 상당의 1kg짜리 골드바 2개를 교부받고, 2007. 6.경부터 7.경까지 사이의 일자불상경 밤 위 ‘◆◆’ 주점에서 공소외 6으로부터 1개당 시가 약 1,956만 원 상당의 1kg짜리 골드바 4개를 추가로 교부받았다.

Ultimately, the Defendant received a bribe equivalent to KRW 11,8120,000 from March 2007 to July 2007, in response to Nonindicted 6’s solicitation from Nonindicted 6 to twice, and received a bribe equivalent to KRW 11,8120,00 of the market price as above, and received the bribe in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

[2015Gohap4]

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office 10 to 14 times against the defendant 1;

1. Relevant VIP root (Nonindicted 1) trends, such as the relocation of the Secretary General of the Office on January 6, 2014;

[2015Gohap159]

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 11

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 12

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 5

1. Records of seizure and photographs of seized articles;

1. A copy of the forwarding statement, a copy of the accusation, a copy of the Government's joint inspection team inspection report, a copy of the photograph, a copy of the offense investigation report, a copy of the (name of business omitted), a copy of the (name of business omitted), a copy of the police investigation report of Nonindicted 13 regarding Nonindicted 13, a copy of the police investigation protocol of Nonindicted 13, a copy of each investigation report (verification of the progress of regulation of the place of massage practice and its building, confirmation of the existence of a loan under Defendant 1), a copy

1. Domestic gold price trend [the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of the Defendant is that the Defendant received 4 thaloids from Nonindicted 6 on May 2007 to June 7, 2007. According to the above data, the market price of the thaloids accepted by the Defendant on May 2007, which was approximately KRW 1,994,00,000,000, which was the average price of the thaloids on June 2007, and around June 1, 2007 through July 7, 2007, which was approximately KRW 1,994,00,000,000 x KRW 1,956,000,000,000 x KRW 1,9466,00,000, which was the average price of the thaloids on June 2007.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 2(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169 of Dec. 26, 2008) and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act / [The fact and scope of acceptance of bribe, and the selection of a limited term imprisonment: Provided, That the maximum of the punishment shall be 15 years pursuant to the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259 of Apr. 15, 2010), Article 127 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 9169 of Dec. 26, 2

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 134 (former part) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Since the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act (the defendant cannot confiscate one of the four duds that are received by the defendant on June through July 7, 2007, and the equivalent value shall be collected in addition. According to the data on the price trend, the domestic gold / her price trend in the new bank is about KRW 43,401,310 as of February 17, 2015 (= approximately 43,401.31 perg x 1,000 x 1,000), the above amount shall be deemed as having been collected at the prior public notice price in consideration of the above amount in light of the above amount in light of the confiscation of three duds (Evidence 30,33,35) seized against the defendant, and 50,000,000 won shall also be collected at the same time. However, in light of the prosecutor's statement and the court of non-indicted 6, it shall not be determined that the above portion was provided at the time of the crime.

Judgment on Defendant 1 and defense counsel’s assertion

1. As to the crime of divulgence of official secrets

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant did not deliver to Nonindicted 3 the documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary of the instant letter of statement (the documents listed in the [Attachment 9] and the documents listed in the [Attachment 9] No. 4]. The contents indicated in the above documents are not worth protecting as confidential and do not constitute public secrets.

B. Determination

The part of innocence, which found the Defendant to have delivered the said documents to Nonindicted 3 on or around January 6, 2014, is inconsistent with the reasoning of the lower judgment.

Furthermore, the above documents only include an intelligence report on public officials, such as the secretary and the administrative secretary belonging to the Presidential Secretariat, in relation to the relocation of the presidential secretary, and there is no content related to the presidential relative, and there is no need to confirm or notify the contents of the documents to Nonindicted 2. Therefore, there is no room to deem that the Defendant’s delivery of the above documents to Nonindicted 2 through Nonindicted 3 constitutes the performance of the duties under the law.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted since this part of the defendant's crime of leakage of official secrets is found guilty.

2. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Around April 2007, the Defendant received five dubs from Nonindicted 4 with the indication of audit advice related to the entertainment tavern tax investigation, or with the expression of personal-friendly relationship. However, the Defendant did not receive cash or dubs from Nonindicted 6 at all.

2) The Defendant was introduced to Nonindicted 6 on or around July 2007. At the time, the investigation against Nonindicted 5’s Nonindicted 6 was not in progress. Accordingly, Nonindicted 6 did not request the Defendant to stop the investigation into Nonindicted 5, and the Defendant did not state that “I would prevent Nonindicted 5 from investigating Nonindicted 5, by allowing Nonindicted 5 to investigate Nonindicted 5 from the special investigation department of the National Police Agency, which was sent to the special investigation department of the National Police Agency after the production of the intelligence against Nonindicted 5, and thereby allowing Nonindicted 6 to investigate Nonindicted 5 from the special investigation department of the National Police Agency.” In addition, the Defendant did not produce the intelligence against Nonindicted 5 upon the request of Nonindicted 6. In addition, the Defendant did not produce the intelligence upon the request of Nonindicted 6.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where the issue is whether or not to accept money or valuables, in order to be convicted solely by a statement made by a person who provided money or valuables where there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money or valuables, the statement should have the admissibility of evidence, as well as the credibility excluding a reasonable doubt. In determining whether or not there is credibility, it is also necessary to also examine whether there is an interest in the statement that he or she is a human being as well as the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, and in particular, if there is a suspicion of a crime against him or there is a possibility that the investigation is being initiated, or there is a possibility that the suspicion of the crime may be initiated, or if there is an investigation is being conducted, the admissibility of the statement in question may affect the statement that he or she intends to escape from imminent circumstances, even if there is a suspicion that he or she has used it, etc.

Furthermore, in a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, the statement of the defendant, which is designated as the recipient of money or valuables, includes the truth, and some falsity, exaggeration, distortion, and mistake. As such, a fact-finding judge in charge of a criminal trial shall find out the truth-finding excluding false, exaggerated, distortion, and mistake among the statements that are mutually contradictory and contradictory between the recipient of money or valuables and the defendant, and make efforts to grasp the substance of the case by combining the truth. Without such efforts, the credibility of some of the statements made by the recipient of money or valuables is recognized. If the statements that correspond to the facts charged are reliable, and all of the statements made by the defendant are rejected entirely, it is difficult to accept that there is some reliable part of the statement made by the defendant, and that the conclusion accordingly is based on sound reasoning (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).

2) Whether the Defendant received a pelb from Nonindicted 6

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the fact that the Defendant received six thalones from Nonindicted 6 to July 2007 on two occasions is sufficiently recognized.

가) 공소외 6은 검찰 및 이 법정에서, ‘◆◆’ 유흥주점에서 피고인에게 2007. 5.경 골드바 2개, 2007. 6.경부터 7.경 사이에 골드바 4개 또는 5개를 각 건네주었다고 일관되게 진술하였다. 또한 공소외 6은 피고인의 요구에 따라 현금이 아닌 골드바를 교부하게 되었고, 1차로 골드바를 교부받은 피고인이 골드바에 표시된 시리얼 넘버를 지워달라고 요구하여 2차로 골드바를 교부할 때에는 시리얼 넘버가 훼손된 골드바를 교부하였다고 진술하였다.

B) On this point, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the monetary content between the Defendant and Nonindicted 6, which was verified under the real name, exists from July 4, 2007. Accordingly, around that time, the Defendant and Nonindicted 6 ought to be deemed to have first met, and accordingly, Nonindicted 6’s statement that was issued to the Defendant at the earlier time was not reliable. However, in light of the following circumstances, Nonindicted 6’s statement on the time when the Defendant was introduced and the time when the pelba was issued, is sufficiently reliable.

(1) 서울지방경찰청 광역수사대 소속 경찰관으로 근무하던 공소외 5는 2006. 12.경부터 서울 강남구 역삼동 소재 ‘▼▼’ 건물의 불법 리모델링을 문제 삼거나 서울 중구 북창동 소재 ‘♡♡♡♡’, ‘□□’ 유흥주점의 탈세혐의를 서울지방국세청에 통보하는 등 공소외 6이 동업 등의 형식으로 실질적으로 운영에 관여하였던 유흥주점에 관한 수사를 하였고, 이로 인해 공소외 6은 유흥주점 영업에 막대한 지장을 받은 것으로 보인다. 서울지방국세청은 2007. 3. 28.경부터 2007. 8. 16.경까지 ‘♡♡♡♡’, ‘□□’ 등 유흥주점에 대한 세무조사를 한 후 2007. 10. 4.경 공소외 6을 조세범처벌법위반죄 등으로 고발하였고, 서울남대문경찰서는 2007. 10. 8. 위 사건을 접수하여 수사한 후 2008. 2. 19. 서울중앙지방검찰청에 송치하였다. 공소외 6으로서는 2006. 12.경부터 공소외 5의 수사를 막을 필요가 있었을 것으로 보이고, 세무조사가 본격적으로 개시된 2007. 3. 말경부터는 한층 더 절박하였을 것으로 보인다.

(2) 공소외 6은 검찰 및 이 법정에서 “공소외 10으로부터 ‘공소외 4가 (기업명 생략)그룹 법무실을 출입하면서 공소외 5의 비리를 잘 알고 있어 도움이 될 것이다.’라는 말을 듣고 공소외 4를 만나게 되었다.”는 취지로 진술하였고, 공소외 4 역시 이 법정에서 (기업명 생략)그룹 회장 공소외 13의 상해사건 발생 직후 공소외 6에게 피고인을 소개해주었다고 진술하였다. 당시 공소외 4는 위 상해사건이 발생한 장소인 서울 중구 북창동 소재 ‘◀◀◀◀’의 업주로서 위 상해사건과 관련하여 수사를 받거나 (기업명 생략)그룹 법무실에 실제로 출입하였으므로, 이에 부합하는 공소외 6 및 공소외 4의 위 각 진술은 신빙성이 있다. 위 상해사건의 발생일이 2007. 3. 8.임에 비추어 보면, 공소외 6과 공소외 4 사이의 만남이 2007. 3. 내지 4.을 전후하여 이루어졌고, 그로부터 얼마 지나지 않은 시기에 공소외 6이 피고인을 소개받은 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

(3) Nonindicted 12’s East 14, who purchased an entertainment drinking house from Nonindicted 6 or operated an entertainment drinking house in the form of Nonindicted 6 and a concurrent business, had a photograph of Nonindicted 6 from May 2, 2007 to June 15, 2007 and delivered it to Nonindicted 6. As seen above, Nonindicted 6 appears to have devised a scheme for Nonindicted 5 to put Nonindicted 5 in a difficult situation due to the probition with Nonindicted 9. As such, it appears that the Defendant was introduced by one of the means. As such, at the latest, Nonindicted 6 ought to be deemed to have been only with the Defendant.

(4) As there is sufficient possibility that Nonindicted 6, who participated in the operation of a large number of amusement establishments at the time, used a mobile phone in the name of the tea, the currency details verified under the real name at the time when 7 years or more have elapsed since the occurrence of the instant case cannot be deemed as critical data on the first time of the occurrence by the Defendant and Nonindicted 6.

(5) Around March 2007 through April 5, 2007, Nonindicted 5 was determined as the person recommended by the Prime Minister’s Office of Prime Minister (on the other hand, omitted). However, according to Nonindicted 5’s statement, Nonindicted 5 suggested an exemplary public official-related interview from the Defendant at that time and divided the Defendant two times, but at that time, the Defendant appears to have been asked Nonindicted 5 about the status of the investigation into Nonindicted 6. Considering the above circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been already contacted with Nonindicted 6 from April 2007, and on the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement that Nonindicted 5 was only made by receiving a proposal from Nonindicted 4 to look at Nonindicted 6 on the part of Nonindicted 6 on July 7, 207.

C) As seen earlier, Nonindicted 6 continued to be investigated by Nonindicted 5 for several months from December 2006. At the time, Nonindicted 6, who had a competitive and conflict relationship with Nonindicted 9 with respect to entertainment tavern business, seems to have been aware that Nonindicted 5 received Nonindicted 9’s death and was investigating himself. In other words, Nonindicted 6, a sufficient motive to introduce the Defendant in order to avoid a continuous business loss, which prevented and continued Nonindicted 5’s emotional investigation.

In addition, Nonindicted 6 made a concrete statement at the prosecutor’s office on the process of introducing Nonindicted 4 through Nonindicted 10 to the effect that “ Nonindicted 5 was introduced Nonindicted 4 through Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 15, after hearing the phrase “it would be helpful for Nonindicted 4 to know well the corruption of Nonindicted 5 while entering the (corporate name omitted) group’s legal office,” or that “ Nonindicted 4 was contacted through Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 4 was a person who wants to know information about Nonindicted 5 by communicating Nonindicted 4 with the author.” At the time, Nonindicted 5 made a concrete statement on the process of investigating the case, such as violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) against the above Nonindicted 13, and considering that there was a conflict of interest between Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 6’s statement on the process of introducing Nonindicted 4.

As such, Nonindicted 6’s statement on the motive and circumstance in which Nonindicted 4 and Defendant were introduced in sequence is also reliable.

D) After having become aware of the Defendant as above, Nonindicted 6 sent contact with the Defendant from time to October 2007 or provided the same drinking place. After that, Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 6 sent a drinking place several times, such as having access to entertainment taverns without Nonindicted 4 and having access to Nonindicted 6. Nonindicted 6 stated to the effect that they calculated the drinking value from the prosecutor’s office and this court, and from this court, Nonindicted 6 made a statement to the effect that they calculated the drinking value at a million won.

The above-mentioned relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 6 is difficult to explain only the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel that the Defendant is merely a mere fact in managing the Information Institute in order to obtain information on Nonindicted 5 from Nonindicted 6.

E) From December 15, 2014 when Nonindicted 6’s initial prosecutor’s statement was made, on February 3, 2015, when approximately half of one month passed from December 15, 2015, the Defendant’s goods stored in the Defendant’s bank loan was seized. From the loan to the above, there was discovery and seizure of 11 and various gold products, and domestic and foreign currency exceeding 100 million won in total. As such, even if seizure was made relatively late, it was actually discovered that dubur was damaged as Non-Indicted 6’s statement. In particular, three dubur (No. 31, 32, 34) was discovered as Non-Indicted 6’s statement. The fact that dubur was damaged by the Defendant. Accordingly, it appears that Non-Indicted 6’s statement corresponds to the Defendant’s actual fact that dubur was made.

F) In this court, Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant first asked about the milk relationship between Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 9, and there was no fact that Nonindicted 6 suggested that the Defendant be aware of the information about Nonindicted 5, or that Nonindicted 6 would be aware of the information about Nonindicted 5,” or that “ Nonindicted 4 would not speak if the case was found in the 2007, which was four years thereafter, even though the investigation of the △△△ entertainment tavern was conducted on 2003, it would not be a speech.” Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that it corresponds to Nonindicted 6’s statement, and that there was no delivery of the Defendant’s alley. Nonindicted 4 made a clear statement to the effect that the relationship with Nonindicted 6 was aggravated, such as Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 6’s criminal litigation. As such, Nonindicted 4 appears to have gone through a dispute regarding the entertainment tavern business after 207, and thus, it appears that the relationship with Nonindicted 6 was aggravated.

G) In addition, around 2007, Nonindicted 8 stated at the prosecution that “In the case of Alley, it is not a thing handled in the same room as the ordinary scarb,” which was sold by Nonindicted 6, compared with the price of 1kg and 1kg in a new bank on any day, Nonindicted 8 stated that “In the case of Alley, she purchased 10 money from her head of her family and her head of her family with the need for the gift of her head of her family and her head of her family with her head of her family with her head of her family with her head of her family with her head of her family with her family with her head of her family with her family with her head of her family with her family with her head of her family with her family with her head of her family with her family with her head of her family with her family with her head of her family with her family with her head of her family.

H) The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Nonindicted 4, as a gift based on the relationship with the Defendant, and around 2003, the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s awareness of the audit of the entertainment tavern tax conducted by “△△△”, and that, at the same time, Nonindicted 4 issued three dubs first to the Defendant and issued two dubs and additionally issued two dubs to the Defendant to seek advice on the entertainment tavern tax investigation conducted by “△△△”.

However, even according to the Defendant’s statement, the content of the advice that the Defendant gave to Nonindicted 4 around 2003 appears to have not been required to deliver a large amount of price to seek advice on matters similar to that of the Defendant around 2007. Moreover, if the Defendant first received three additional documents, as alleged in the above, if Nonindicted 4 first received three additional documents, then the Defendant did not receive a large amount of price, first of all, damaged ice, and then have not been issued. In addition, if the content of the advice that Nonindicted 4 gave up around 2003, it is extremely difficult to understand that Nonindicted 4 received a large amount of price.

I) The Defendant’s aforementioned vindication appears to have derived from the intent to deny his criminal act by making a statement different from the facts charged regarding the number, etc. of the thaloid providers, the recipient of the thaloids, and the number of the thaloids received from a third party, in a situation where it is impossible to vindicate five sources from the 11th thaloids discovered in his bank loan. However, as seen above, the fact that Non-Indicted 4 and Non-Indicted 6 provided the thaloids is recognized, and further, considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the number of thaloids received from Non-Indicted 6 is four.

(1) As seen earlier, Nonindicted 6 stated consistent and clearly to the effect that Nonindicted 6 issued two or more two or more two-lanes to the Defendant in the prosecutor’s office and this court, as seen earlier, with respect to the number of the Alleys issued to the Defendant. As seen earlier, insofar as Nonindicted 6’s statement on the facts and circumstances of the Defendant’s delivery is consistent with objective facts and its credibility is recognized, there seems to be no room for false intervention in Nonindicted 6’s statement on the number of the Alleys issued.

(2) Nonindicted 6 did not have received advice or assistance from a third party in specifying the number of the Alleys delivered to the Defendant. Nonindicted 6 asked questions about the timing and number of the purchase of Alleys in the currency with Nonindicted 8, who sold the Alleys to himself, but the said currency was made in the course of investigation by preparing a written statement to the effect that Nonindicted 6 first appeared at the prosecutor’s office and delivered two-lanes and four-lanes to Nonindicted 6, and that it was made in the course of investigation by preparing a written statement to the effect that Nonindicted 6 first appeared at the prosecutor’s office, and that it is reasonable to view it as part of the City/Do in order to induce the objective statement of Nonindicted 8. Moreover, the content of Nonindicted 6’s statement does not completely change even after the said currency was made.

(3) In addition, Nonindicted 6 consistently stated to the effect that, in a situation where it was impossible for the Defendant to expect that the dudial is actually discovered from the Defendant’s loan, the number of dudials issued to the Defendant according to one’s memory is specified. As such, upon the discovery of dudials, Nonindicted 6 consistently stated to the effect that “it is evident that the Defendant would have seen the dudials for a long time to view the dudials directly to the Defendant, and that “it is evident that the duds distributed twice to the Defendant are four or more.”

3) Whether the Defendant received 50 million won in cash from Nonindicted 6

A) Furthermore, prior to the Defendant’s receipt of the Alley as above, whether the Defendant received KRW 50 million in cash from Nonindicted 6 on March 2007 or around April 2007 is deemed to have been given. Direct evidence that corresponds to the facts charged that the Defendant received KRW 50 million in cash from Nonindicted 6 among the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the prosecutor’s office and the court’s statement are due to the fact that the Defendant was given from Nonindicted 6, and thus, the credibility of Nonindicted 6’s statement should be examined.

B) Relevant legal principles

The recognition of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to confluence to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of confluence as above, the interest of the defendant should be determined even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or uncomfortable. Furthermore, the aforementioned strict proof includes all specific facts constituting a crime as indicated in the indictment. In particular, the date and time of the crime specified in the facts charged is the main object of the defendant’s right to defense, and it should be recognized through strict proof, and it should not be recognized that there is evidence of facts constituting a crime on the ground that there is a probability that the prosecutor committed the crime in another time even if such proof is insufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).

C) As to whether Nonindicted 6 delivered cash KRW 50 million to the Defendant, Nonindicted 6 did not mention the first written statement, and subsequently made a relatively clear statement to the effect that Nonindicted 6 delivered KRW 50 million to the Defendant from the time of the preparation of the written statement. However, Nonindicted 6’s statement on the source of KRW 50 million, time, place, method, etc. of the delivery is unclear as follows, and its contents are more concrete through investigation and trial.

(1) 공소외 6은 검찰 제1회 진술조서 작성 시 “피고인과 ■■■■에서 저녁을 먹고 쇼핑백에 현금 5,000만 원을 넣어 피고인의 차에 실어주었던 것은 기억이 난다.”라고 진술하면서도, “현금을 실어준 곳이 ■■■■ 앞이었는지, 아니면 이후 ’◆◆‘ 주점에서 술을 마시고 ▶▶동 부근에 있는 피고인의 집 앞이었는지 잘 기억나지 않고, 그 때가 피고인에게 골드바를 건네기 전인지 후인지도 잘 기억나지 않아 진술서에는 5,000만 원 교부 사실을 기재하지 않았다.”라고 진술하였다. 또한 공소외 6은 피고인에게 교부한 5,000만 원의 출처에 관하여 “돈을 줄 때 수중에 현금이 많이 있었는지 아니면 공소외 12에게 부탁해서 마련하였는지는 잘 기억이 나지 않는다.”라고 진술하였다.

(2) 그러나 공소외 6은 검찰 제2회 진술조서 작성 시 “피고인에게 돈을 건네준 것은 2007. 4. 이후이고, 생각해보니 골드바보다 5,000만 원을 준 것이 먼저였던 것 같은데, 그 이유는 제가 피고인에게 골드바를 준 것은 피고인이 5,000만 원을 받은 뒤 앞으로는 쓰기 편하게 골드바로 달라고 하였기 때문이다. 당시 1묶음에 1,000만 원씩 5다발을 큰 비닐 쇼핑백에 넣어 쇼핑백 위의 똑딱이 단추를 채워 제 차 트렁크에 싣고 있다가 피고인의 차 트렁크에 실어 주었던 것은 기억이 나는데, 그 곳이 저녁을 먹고 나온 ■■■■ 앞 주차장이었는지 아니면 ’◆◆‘에서 술을 마시고 귀가하는 피고인의 집 앞이었는지 명확히 기억이 나지 않는다.”면서 5,000만 원의 교부 시기 및 경위, 방법에 관하여 종전보다 훨씬 상세하게 진술하였다.

(3) 그런데 공소외 6은 검찰 제3회 진술조서 작성 시 5,000만 원의 출처에 관하여, 검사로부터 2007. 3. 22. 5,000만 원을 출금한 자신의 신한은행 거래내역을 제시받자 “처음 피고인을 소개받은 후 돈을 주어야겠다고 생각하고 미리 현금을 찾아 트렁크에 보관하고 있다가 기회를 봐서 피고인에게 주었던 것 같기도 하다.”고 하여 위 제1회 진술과는 다른 취지로 진술하였다. 또한 “다시 곰곰이 생각해보니 피고인은 피고인대로 차를 타고 가고 저는 저대로 차를 타고 피고인의 차를 뒤따라갔던 적은 없는 것 같고, 그렇다면 피고인의 집 앞에서 제 차에 실려 있던 돈을 피고인의 차에 옮겨 실어줄 수는 없는 것 같으니 ■■■■ 주차장에서 돈을 준 것이 맞는 것 같다.”는 취지로 진술함으로써 종전의 진술과 달리 5,000만 원의 교부 장소를 특정하기도 하였다.

(4) 그러나 공소외 6은 이 법정에서 “5,000만 원을 준 것은 사실이나 장소가 집 앞이었는지 ■■■■이었는지 차에 어떻게 실어주었는지 그 부분에 대해서는 정확하게 기억하지 못하고 있다.”고 진술하여 다시 입장을 바꾸었고, 5,000만 원의 출처에 관하여는 피고인에게 교부하기 위해 은행에서 미리 인출한 돈을 차에 보관하였다며 검찰에서보다 확실한 듯한 태도로 진술하였다.

라) 위와 같이 공소외 6은 ‘피고인에게 5,000만 원을 교부하였다’는 사실 외에 교부시기, 장소, 방법, 현금의 출처 등 어느 것 하나 분명하고 일관되게 진술하지 못하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 피고인에게 교부한 현금의 액수나 현금을 교부한 사실 자체에 관한 공소외 6의 기억이 부정확하거나 과장되었을 가능성도 배제할 수 없으므로, 위와 같은 공소외 6의 검찰 및 법정진술은 그대로 신뢰하기 어렵다. 따라서 공소외 6이 공소사실 기재와 같이 2007. 3. 내지 4.경 서울 강남구 신사동 소재 ‘■■■■’ 식당 앞 주차장에서 피고인에게 현금 5,000만 원을 교부한 사실이 합리적 의심을 배제할 정도로 증명되었다고 볼 수 없다.

4) Whether business relationship exists or not

A) The legal interest of the crime of bribery lies in the process of performance of duties and the misappropriation of performance of duties based on social trust. As such, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established when the amount of money received from a public official’s official’s duties and money is in a quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to consider the existence of solicitation and the quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties. In addition, the duties in the crime of bribery include not only the duties under the legal control of the public official, but also the duties closely related to the duties, such as customs or actual duties under the jurisdiction of the public official, or duties to assist or influence the decision-making authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6829, Feb. 13, 2014, etc.

B) According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it is recognized that the Defendant received the pelb from Nonindicted 6 in connection with his/her duties.

(1) In the prosecutor’s office and this court, Nonindicted 6 asked the Defendant to stop the investigation of Nonindicted 5 from the first place of introduction. Since then, Nonindicted 6 consistently stated to the effect that he was a police officer who was on duty in the Prime Minister, and that he was given the Defendant a two-way visit to the National Police Agency (hereinafter “Special Investigation Division”). In addition, Nonindicted 6 requested Nonindicted 5’s investigation and investigation to the effect that, as well as Nonindicted 5’s request to the effect that it would bring about the problem of tax investigation, it should be necessary for the Defendant, and the National Tax Service should also go through the National Tax Service, and that the Defendant was additionally given the alley. The aforementioned statement made by Nonindicted 6 was sufficient from December 2, 2006 to Nonindicted 6, including Nonindicted 5, who continued to suffer difficulties in business by undergoing investigation by Nonindicted 6, who was on duty at the time of entertainment drinking tickets, and that Nonindicted 6 was given a two-way visit to Nonindicted 6, 207.

(2) 피고인은 경찰공무원으로서, 2003. 3. 4.경부터 2008. 2. 29.경까지 국무조정실 산하 ♤♤심의관실에 파견되어 행정부 공무원들의 공직기강을 점검하고 공무원들의 비위에 관한 진정 또는 첩보를 확인하여 일선 수사기관에 그 진정이나 첩보를 통보하는 업무를 담당하였다. 이처럼 공소외 5에 대한 비위첩보를 생산하여 수사기관에 통보할 수 있는 직무를 담당하고 있었던 피고인이 공소외 6으로부터 위와 같은 부탁을 받고 비위첩보를 생산하는 등의 방법으로 공소외 6의 수사를 막아주겠다는 취지의 말을 한 후 골드바를 수수하였다면, 피고인의 직무와 골드바의 수수는 전체적으로 대가관계에 있다고 봄이 상당하다.

On May 7, 2007, when the Defendant asked Nonindicted 5 to conduct a tax investigation, it is true that Nonindicted 5 notified Nonindicted 5 to the National Tax Service of the suspicion of tax evasion, such as “Seongsan”. However, Nonindicted 6, who received continuous investigation of Nonindicted 5, such as violation of the Building Act and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act from December 2006, thought that Nonindicted 5, who had been engaged in a tax investigation with Nonindicted 6, did not seem to have caused considerable apprehension. In other words, Nonindicted 6 introduced Nonindicted 5 through the National Tax Service to prevent the investigation of Nonindicted 6, regardless of whether Nonindicted 5 notified Nonindicted 6’s tax investigation to the effect that it was necessary for Nonindicted 5 to conduct a tax investigation, and that Nonindicted 6, who was subject to the National Tax Service’s request, had been subject to the said investigation by Nonindicted 6’s head of the tax office or the National Tax Service to the effect that Nonindicted 5 had been subject to the said investigation of tax evasion. Furthermore, it appears that there was no reason to deem the Defendant to have been more likely to produce and deliver Nonindicted 5’s tax investigation.

(3) 피고인은 공소외 6으로부터 골드바를 수수한 후 실제로 공소외 5가 수사권 남용 등을 통해 공소외 9를 비호하고 공소외 9로부터 정기적으로 금품ㆍ향응을 수수하였다는 내용의 비위자료를 작성하였다. 2007. 9. 10.경 위 자료에 기초한 ♤♤심의관실 명의의 공직비리 첩보자료가 작성되었으며, 2007. 9. 17. 위 내용이 경찰청 특수수사과에 통보되어 공소외 5에 대한 수사가 개시되었다.

(4) Although the Defendant recommended Nonindicted 5 as “(defluence omitted)” around April 2007, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the aforementioned document was prepared and processed with Nonindicted 5’s misconduct committed by Nonindicted 5, who was called “defluence” from the lower police officer on May 2007 or from the first police officer on June 2007. However, Nonindicted 11, who had been employed as the investigator at the time, clearly stated in this court that there was no fact of receiving the lower judgment against Nonindicted 5, and there was no other material supporting that the lower court received the lower judgment against Nonindicted 5.

(5) 설령 공소외 5에 대한 하명사건이 실제로 존재하였다고 하더라도, 피고인이 국무조정실 산하 ♤♤심의관실 소속 행정관으로서 공소외 6으로부터 위와 같은 부탁을 받고 골드바를 수수한 이상 피고인에 대한 뇌물수수죄의 성립에는 아무런 지장이 없다.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on this part is not accepted, since it is found guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) that the defendant accepted six thalds as bribe

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years nor more than 17 years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

A. Divulgence of official secrets

It is an offense for which the sentencing criteria have not been set.

(b) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

[Determination of Punishment] Acceptance of Briberys at least KRW 100 million, and less than KRW 500,000

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Seven years to Ten years of imprisonment

C. Handling of multiple crimes

Since the sentencing criteria are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes on which the sentencing criteria are set and the crimes on which the sentencing criteria are not set, the sentencing criteria shall not be applied directly, but the lower limit of the sentencing range shall be based on the lower limit of the sentencing range in the sentencing criteria for the crimes on violation

3. Determination of sentence: Seven years of imprisonment; and

피고인 1은 경찰공무원으로서, 국무조정실 산하 ♤♤심의관실에 파견되어 공무원들의 비위사실을 확인하여 수사기관에 통보하는 등 공직기강을 점검하는 업무를 담당하였다. 그러나 피고인은 엄격한 공정성이 요구되는 위와 같은 직무를 수행하면서 오히려 그 지위를 이용하여, 유흥주점 업주로부터 경찰수사 및 세무조사를 막아달라는 부탁을 받고 2007. 당시 시가로도 1억 원이 넘는 거액의 골드바를 뇌물로 수수하였다.

In addition, the Defendant was dispatched to the secretary of the ○○○○○○ Office affiliated with the Office of the Presidential Secretariat, and was performing the duty of inspecting the presidential friendship, etc., and leaked any documents containing any secrets in the line of duty.

The above position of the defendant, the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes in this case, the amount of bribe received, the attitude of the defendant in the investigation agency and court after the crime, etc., and other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case shall be taken into consideration, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. The violation of the Presidential Records Management Act due to the delivery of each document listed in the separate sheet of crime list (1) and the delivery of each document listed in the separate sheet of crime list (2)

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인 1은 2013. 2. 26.부터 2014. 2. 10.까지(인사명령상 2013. 4. 10.부터 2014. 2. 12.까지) 대통령비서실 ▷▷▷▷비서관실 산하 ○○○○비서관실 소속 행정관으로 재직하면서 청와대 공무원 감찰, 공직자 비위감찰, 인사검증, 대통령 측근 관리 등의 직무를 수행하였고, 2014. 3. 7.경부터 서울★★경찰서 ♥♥♥♥♥♥으로 재직 중인 경찰관이다.

From February 2013 to April 2014, Defendant 2 served as the secretary of ○○○○○○○○○○ Office under the Presidential Secretariat, and performed his duties, such as inspecting public officials, inspecting public officials, inspecting public officials’ misconduct, verifying personnel affairs, and managing the presidential commuting position.

Defendant 1: (a) around June 2013, at the office of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, located in Jongno-gu Seoul, and reported to Defendant 2 on the following: (b) the content of the documents: (c) collected the local personal characteristics of the VIP during the VIP room (the office of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the secretary of the ○○○○○○○, Jun. 18, 13); and (d) obtained information and collected the local personal history of the VIP S, career, influence in China, etc. through KL, and (d) maintained a friendly relationship with the domestic financial circles, business entities, etc.; and (c) tried to raise money for investment, including the content of the documents and the fact that S was identified in the secretary of the secretary of the office of the ○○○○, etc.

Accordingly, Defendant 2, after completing the upper report on the above documents, ordered Defendant 1 to deliver the above documents to Nonindicted 2 via Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2’s neighboring part of Nonindicted 2. Defendant 1 had the above documents, which were the presidential records produced and kept in relation to the presidential duties in accordance with Defendant 2’s order, out of the audience, and then delivered them to Nonindicted 3 on the street near Nonindicted 3’s office located in Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address 7 omitted) around that time.

Defendant 1 received orders from June 2013 to January 2014 by Defendant 2 in the same manner, and delivered 17 Presidential records (including ten confidential documents, such as the list of crimes (2)) that were produced and kept as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table (1) to Nonindicted 3 in the street log around the office of Nonindicted 3 at the time when each document was produced and reported.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to divulge the Presidential records produced and retained by the assisting agency in relation to the performance of the duties of the President without permission from the public agency, and at the same time disclosed the official secrets under the laws and regulations.

B. Summary of the Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion

(i) common arguments;

In addition, each document listed in the attached Table 1 (1) is not produced in relation to the performance of the duties of the President, and the document delivered to Nonindicted 3 is not merely a presidential record on the printed or reproduced copy of the official report.

In addition, each of the documents listed in the separate sheet of crimes (2) and, in particular, the content of the documents related to the replacement statement of the chief secretary of the secretary general of the instant letter of crime does not include any secrets in the line of duty, and delivering each of the above documents to Nonindicted 2 does not constitute “disclosure” under Article 127 of the Criminal

2) Individual assertion

A) Defendant 1 and his defense counsel

Defendant 1 did not deliver to Nonindicted 3 the documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary of the instant secretary and the documents indicated in No. 10 No. 10 of the attached crime list (hereinafter “documents related to the personnel affairs of police officers of this case”). Moreover, there was no perception that Defendant 1’s delivery to Nonindicted 3 of the documents was unlawful.

B) Defendant 2 and defense counsel

The documents listed in the separate sheet (1) Nos. 1 through 11 are contents that Nonindicted 2 already knows or need not be informed to Nonindicted 2. Thus, Defendant 2 did not have ordered Defendant 1 to deliver each of the above documents to Nonindicted 3. In addition, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to process and deliver each of the documents listed in the separate sheet Nos. 12 through 17 so that it can not be known that it is a luxed document. However, Defendant 2 did not state each of the above documents.

C. Determination as to the Defendants’ violation of the Presidential Records Management Act

1) The process for preparing, reporting, and delivering documents

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, each of the documents listed in the annexed Table (1) shall be prepared and reported as follows.

A) The special inspection duty of the president’s relatives falls under the duties of the special inspection team established at the Presidential Secretariat under the Organization. However, the inspection duty of Nonindicted Party 2’s husband and wife became in charge of Nonindicted Party 2’s request and the decision of the president of the Presidential Secretariat, instead of the special inspection team. At the time, Defendant 2, who was the secretary of the ○○○○○○○ Office, was in charge of the relevant duties among the administrative officers under his jurisdiction.

B) Defendant 2 ordered Defendant 1 to conduct an investigation in a case where an intelligence on a matter that may arise in the future, such as a case of misrepresentation or exaggeration with Nonindicted Party 2’s husband and wife. Defendant 1 conducted an investigation on the matter instructed by Defendant 2 in a variety of ways, and Defendant 1 also issued relevant investigation documents to Nonindicted Party 3 on matters necessary for confirmation on the side of Nonindicted Party 2’s husband and wife, such as the existence of the actual relationship with Nonindicted Party 2’s husband and wife.

C) At the time, the administrative officers belonging to the office of the head of the office of ○○○○ secretary prepared a report in the form of electronic document using their own personal computers on their own business affairs. The administrative officers did not take measures such as storing and registering the written report on their own computer drive, but did not take measures such as registering it through their administrative computer network. Defendant 1 also prepared and managed the report in the same way as Defendant 1’s personal computer in the form of electronic document, but the respective documents indicated in the attached list (1) were not separately registered on the computer network, and were reported on the paper document without undergoing the approval procedure, such as undergoing the electronic resolution procedure or printing it in the paper document.

D) Defendant 1, upon completion of the internal discussion with Defendant 2, printed out three copies of the report in paper and delivered it to Defendant 2. Defendant 2, one of the above three copies of the report, has been in possession of himself, and Defendant 2 completed the report in sequence with the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary

E) Upon the completion of the reporting procedure under each of the above reports, Defendant 1 took measures in accordance with the contents of the recommendations for measures stated in the report, unless there is any other instruction. Defendant 1 additionally printed out one copy of the report in paper form or sent a copy to Nonindicted 3 using the electronic file date of the report that completed the report, if necessary, using the electronic file date of the report that completed the report, and separately stored one copy of the report in the personal file file format for personal reference of Defendant 1.

2) Whether each of the documents listed in the attached list of crimes (1) constitutes Presidential records

A) Requirements for Presidential records

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Presidential Records Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Presidential Records Act") defines "Presidential records" as "Presidential records (including acting for the President under Article 71 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the President-elect under Article 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 187 of the Public Official Election Act)" in relation to the performance of duties of the President (including acting for the President under Article 71 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, acting for the President under Article 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the President-elect under Article 187 of the Public Official Election Act), the Presidential Transition Committee under Article 6 of the Act on the Acquisition of Presidential Positions (hereinafter referred to as the "National Records Management Act"), which are created and received by the President, [referring to the records under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Public Records Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Presidential Records Management Act"), the Presidential records are defined as administrative records and audio-visual records in relation to the Presidential gift (referring to those under Article 15 of the Public Service Ethics Act)."

In full view of the contents of the above relevant laws and regulations, in order to evaluate certain objects as Presidential records, they shall fall under the presidential symbol or presidential gift of which the pattern symbolizing the President is a good or an administrative stuffing the President, which has preservation value on a national level, or where it is not so, ① The Presidential Records Creation Institution shall fall under ① (2) the Presidential Records Creation Institution: (4) the documents, books, ledgers, cards, drawings, audio-visual materials, electronic documents, etc. are produced or received.

(B) Whether Presidential records creation institutions have created them

All of the documents mentioned in attached Table 1 (1) are prepared by the Secretary General of ○○○○ Office under the Presidential Secretariat. According to Article 14(1) of the Government Organization Act and Article 2 of the Organization of the Presidential Secretariat, it is clear that the Presidential Secretariat is an institution established to assist the President in the duties of the President, and falls under the “the assisting agency of the President” of the Presidential Archives.

(C) Whether the President was prepared in relation to the performance of duties

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Presidential Records Act requires creation in relation to the presidential duties of the President. Thus, we examine whether each document indicated in the attached Table No. 1 of the Presidential Records Act was created “in relation to the performance of the duties of the President.”

(1) The President is the head of the State at the same time, and performs duties that exercise overall control over all administrative affairs, such as setting up and promoting important policies of the Government by directing and supervising the head of the central administrative agency as the accompanying of the Government. Therefore, the term “performance” in the “performance of duties” refers to the concept that includes inherent duties and duties related thereto under the legislation, and the term “related with performance of duties” should be understood as a broad concept that covers all acts or activities required or accompanied by the nature of the status in accordance with statutes, municipal ordinances, or administrative practices and practices.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the presidential secretary assisting the President’s duties. Article 3 of the Office Regulation of the Presidential secretary requires the head of the Office to handle the affairs of the Presidential secretary under the order of the President, and direct and supervise public officials under his/her control. Article 7 of the same Organization provides that the Presidential secretary shall have a special inspection team under his/her jurisdiction to inspect the duties of the senior public officials belonging to the administration appointed by the President under the order of the President, the heads of public institutions and organizations appointed by the President, the executives of the public institutions and organizations, the relatives of the President, and persons in a special relationship with the President. The special inspection team’s duties are carried out in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, or by collecting intelligence or verifying facts without compulsory measures, and if deemed necessary for investigation, the relevant investigation is requested or transferred to the investigation agency.

In full view of the above provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to view that the Presidential Secretariat’s special inspection within the scope stipulated in Article 7 of the Decree on the Organization of the Office of the President is conducted in relation to the performance of duties of the President according to the order of

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the above characteristics of the special inspection work of the Presidential Secretariat as well as the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, each of the documents listed in the attached Table No. 1, which was made in the process of legitimate inspection conducted within the scope of the duty of special inspection of the Presidential Secretariat or was made in the inspection result and necessary measures, shall be deemed as having been made in relation to the performance of the duties of the President (as seen above, unless Defendant 2 performed the inspection work relating to Nonindicted 2 by the direction of the President, it shall not be deemed that the special inspection activity as follows was carried out by the office of ○○○○○, not by the special inspection team).

(A) Each document listed in attached Table 1 (1) is about the following facts: (a) the person who assumes a friendship with, or exaggerations, the President or the President’s relative; and (b) or Nonindicted 1 reported his opinion on the matters related to the presidential relative (each document described in No. 1 through No. 8, No. 11, and No. 17); (c) or (d) the person in charge of Nonindicted 1’s personal affairs, etc., and delivered, carried out his opinion, or took part in, the police officer’s personal affairs, etc., of the president, who is the most opposite side of the president, of the Do governor, the Do governor’s office, the Do governor’s secretary, or the secretary’s office of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○; and (e) the document prepared by Defendant 1, an administrative secretary of the ○○○○○○○○○, in accordance with the direction of Defendant 2, a presidential secretary.

(B) In particular, each of the documents listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1, 5 through 8, and 11 include a recommendation to the effect that, as well as the fact-finding verification as to the intelligence collected, if there is a concern over a presidential relative-related problem due to the fact-finding, misrepresentation, or exaggeration with Nonindicted Co. 2’s relatives, the president-friendly relatives, and the third party, etc. In other words, each of the above documents is included in the purpose of preparing each document, to prevent the presidential relative from causing interference with the president’s performance. Moreover, the documents and the press trends of the police officer’s personnel affairs related to the replacement theory of the head of the visa of this case also are also prepared to block this problem in advance in a case where the presidential performance is likely to be interfered with by a third party or lose fairness.

(C) In full view of the purpose, method, procedure, and content of the preparation of each of the documents listed in the attached Table No. 1 as above, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above documents was prepared in the process of, or as a result of, the lawful special inspection by the Presidential Secretariat.

D) Whether “produced” ④ constitutes “documents”

- Originals of each document listed in Annex 1 List of Offenses

With respect to each of the documents listed in the [Attachment] Nos. 1 through 11 among the documents listed in the annexed Table No. 1, when Defendant 1 completes the preparation of the corresponding report, three copies of the documents shall be printed out to Defendant 2 and delivered to Defendant 2. Defendant 2 delivered one copy of each of the documents to the secretary in charge of the secretary in charge of the public affairs and the secretary in charge of the presidential affairs, and Defendant 2 delivered one copy to Defendant 2,00 to Defendant 2 so that each of the documents listed in the annexed Table Nos. 12 through 17 may be referred to in the pertinent report. As such, as seen above, there is no room for doubt to view that the original document issued to Defendant 2, who is the final reporting authority, falls under the “documents” upon completion of production, and thus, it is difficult to view the document No. 4 of the attached Table No. 12 through 17 as the documents listed in the annexed Table No. 3 as the last statement No. 4 of the crime.

Ultimately, the original of a paper document used to report each document listed in the attached Table 1 list of crimes falls under the Presidential records prescribed by the Presidential Records Act.

3) Whether additional output or reproduction constitutes Presidential records

As seen above, the paper document originals of each document listed in attached Table 1 (1) constitute the Presidential records. However, as seen above, Defendant 1 additionally printed out the paper document or copied it to Nonindicted 3 using the electronic file date of the original document that completed the reporting procedure, and then delivered it to Nonindicted 3. The prosecutor also indicted the Defendants on the premise of such fact-finding. Ultimately, in order to find the Defendants guilty of violating the Presidential Records Management Act, this paper examines this point as follows: (a) in addition to the original document, it should be additionally printed out or copied using the electronic file of the same content as the original document and also constitute the presidential records.

However, the interpretation of the law must be conducted in the direction of finding a concrete validity within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. To this end, as a matter of principle, the interpretation should be faithfully interpreted within the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the law. In addition, the systematic and logical interpretation method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the law, the history of enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other Acts and subordinate statutes should meet the request for legal interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1345, Mar. 26, 2015).

Examining the following circumstances in light of the legislative intent and purpose, protected legal interests, etc. on the basis of the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the Presidential Records Act and related Acts, it is reasonable to interpret additional copies or duplication of Presidential records as not constituting Presidential records in principle.

A) The Presidential Records Act was enacted on April 27, 2007 and enforced on July 28, 2007 to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the presidential administration by preparing a thorough plan for the preservation and protection of Presidential records, establishing a comprehensive Presidential records management system, such as securing the independence of the management of Presidential records, by prescribing matters concerning the establishment and operation of the Presidential Archives, and thereby establishing a comprehensive Presidential records management system. The Presidential Records Act was partially amended on two occasions thereafter. In accordance with the legislative intent mentioned above, the Presidential Records Act was enacted to ensure the independent preservation and management of Presidential records by establishing and operating the Presidential Records Special Committee, the Presidential records creation institution, the record repository, and the Presidential Archives, and to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the presidential administration by enhancing the transparency and accountability of the national administration.

As above, the Presidential Records Act was enacted to enhance transparency in the implementation of national policies by clarifying the production entity and scope of Presidential records and establishing an organization in exclusive charge of the management of Presidential records, etc., based on reflective consideration of the fact that various records related to the performance of the duties of the former president have not been preserved properly and have not been systematically managed.

In light of the legislative purpose and specific contents of the Presidential Records Act, in the event that there is an electronic file used for the preparation and printing of the documents and the original of the paper document used for the relevant report, if the original document used for the relevant report is transferred to the Presidential Archives, and the registration and transfer of the relevant electronic document is made in accordance with the principle of electronic production and management under Article 8 of the Presidential Records Act, the legislative purpose of enhancing the transparency and accountability of the state administration through the preservation of the records can be sufficiently achieved, and there is no reason to enforce the preservation by classifying the additional output or duplication of the same content as all Presidential records.

B) Article 14 of the Presidential Records Act provides that no person shall destroy, damage, conceal, destroy or leak Presidential records without permission or take them out of the country. Article 30(1) provides that a person who destroys Presidential records without permission (Article 14) and a person who takes them out from the country (Article 30(2) provides that he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won, and Article 14(2) provides that a person who conceals or leaks Presidential records without permission (Article 14 subparagraph 1) and a person who damages or destroys Presidential records (Article 2(2) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won.

If a number of paper documents additionally printed out or reproduced and copied during the reporting process exist as alleged by a prosecutor, if all of them are managed as Presidential records, then the additional output or copy of the same content as the original of the paper document should be preserved, and if some of them are discarded, all of them should be subject to criminal punishment in accordance with the above penal provision. In addition, if the original of the paper document exists separately, and the original of the paper document and its electronic file can be preserved, there is no need or room for criminal punishment on the ground that the additional output or copy has not been transferred to the Presidential Archives.

C) The prosecutor’s assertion that not only the original copy of paper documents used for reporting but also the additional output or copy also corresponds to the whole Presidential records is based on the premise that most documents prepared by the Presidential record production institution are related to important policies of the country, or contain sensitive matters related to the presidential relative or personal privacy, such as each document listed in the attached list of crimes (1) and should not be disclosed to the outside of the Presidential record production institution without permission, regardless of which they are indicated. However, the main reason is that each document needs to be punished for leakage without asking whether the additional output or copy is the original copy after completion of reporting.

However, it is desirable to secure the internal security and information protection of the presidential support agency as the Presidential records creation institution through the strengthening of the security of the relevant institution, the arrangement and strict application of various regulations related to the protection of security and information, and the observance of various laws and regulations related to the protection of confidentiality, etc. In light of such circumstances, the penal provisions of the Presidential Records Act for the purpose of preserving the Presidential records cannot be used as grounds for analogy and expansion

Even if such policy needs arise as alleged above by the prosecutor, if all documents produced in the process of producing and reporting records fall under Presidential records and all acts of destroying or leaking them constitute a violation of the Presidential Records Management Act, it is reasonable to deem such interpretation theory as excessively expanding or interpreting penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant, and thus, is not permissible in violation of the principle of no punishment without law.

Meanwhile, Article 16 of the Presidential Records Act provides that Presidential records shall be disclosed to the public in principle, and Article 17 provides that the Presidential records shall be classified as presidentially-designated records and the disclosure thereof shall be restricted by specifying a certain period of time. This provision is also necessary to promote the transfer of Presidential records through the non-disclosure of Presidential records in terms of the fact that the disclosure of important matters related to the President's performance of state affairs may serve as a factor to ensure the transfer of the Presidential records if the disclosure of important matters related to the Presidential affairs can be caused by the transfer thereof to the Presidential Archives. Important matters related to national policies or sensitive matters, the disclosure of which is inappropriate, are restricted through the procedures, such as the designation of presidentially-designated records, so that the contents thereof can be prevented in advance from being disclosed.

In addition, Article 19 of the Presidential Records Act provides that a person who is or has been in charge of the management of Presidential records or a person who has accessed and perused Presidential records shall not divulge confidential information he/she learned in the course and the contents included in Presidential designated records during the protection period, and the person who violates the prohibition of divulgence of confidential information under Articles 30(3) through 19 shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years or suspension of qualifications for not more than seven years. Thus, the act of leakage of Presidential records, the disclosure of which is inappropriate, can be punished through the above provision, thereby sufficiently accomplishing the policy needs as argued by the

D) With respect to the interpretation of the former Act on the Management of Archives of Public Institutions (wholly amended by Act No. 8025 of Oct. 4, 2006), the Ministry of Justice interpreted the content that “A person who conceals or leaks archives without permission shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won” on December 2005, the archives under Article 30 of the said Act are restricted to the original managed by a public institution, and the copies thereof are not included. Therefore, Article 30 subparag. 1 of the said Act shall not apply to any act of reproducing copies of the original managed by a public institution and discharging them without permission.”

In this regard, on the grounds that Article 1 of the Presidential Records Act refers to the "protection of records" unlike Article 1 of the Public Records Act, a prosecutor asserts that the Presidential Records Act aims to preserve records in addition to the preservation of records, unlike the Public Records Act, the main purpose of which is to preserve the "record itself," which is a recording heritage, and therefore, the purpose of the Act is to protect records other than the preservation of records. Therefore, the additional output or reproduction of records as well as the original records also constitute Presidential records

However, there is no big difference in the form of regulations by which both the Public Records Act and the Presidential Records Act have a penal provision on the act of destroying, taking out, concealing, leaking, damaging, or destroying archives without permission, and the act of divulging confidential records. Furthermore, the Presidential Records Act is different from the Public Records Act in that it was enacted to preserve and manage archives created, received, and held by Presidential records creation institutions in relation to the duties of the President in accordance with the former Public Records Act, among public records preserved, managed, and protected in accordance with the former Public Records Act, in that it was enacted to preserve and manage archives independently, efficiently, and in terms of protecting the contents of archives, it is not significantly different from

Therefore, the Presidential Records Act cannot be deemed to have been enacted for the purpose of strengthening the protection of records, unlike the Public Records Act, solely on account of the difference in the above expressions in the purpose of the Act, and since the Presidential Records Act aims at “protection” of records unlike the Public Records Act, the prosecutor’s assertion that additional copies or copies of Presidential records should also be subject to punishment, unlike that the Public Records Act does not punish the leakage of copies.

E) In addition, under the title of Article 7(1) of the Presidential Records Act, the prosecutor asserts that “the President and the head of a Presidential record creation institution shall make all processes and results related to the President’s performance of duties to be created and managed as records,” and that all documents recorded in the process and results of the performance of duties shall be deemed as falling under the Presidential records from the first report stage, and therefore, additional copies or copies of the Presidential records may also become the Presidential records.

However, Article 7(1) of the Presidential Records Act provides that "the head of a Presidential record creation institution shall be obliged to take measures to create and manage all the processes and results related to the President's performance of his/her duties as records, and such provision does not immediately define the content and form scope of Presidential records." Under Article 16(1) of the Public Records Act, "the principle of records creation" is the title "the principle of records creation" in Article 16(1) of the Public Records Act, "public institutions shall take necessary measures for records management based on the process of performing their duties so that all the processes and results of performing their duties can be created and managed as records for the efficient and responsible performance of duties." In light of the above provision, Article 7 of the Presidential Records Act is difficult to deem that Article 7 of the Presidential Records Act particularly expands the scope of Presidential records."

In addition, the above provision is a special provision prepared to secure the transparency and accountability of state administration by faithfully preserving the process of important policy-making, and it is intended to confirm the progress of discussions or changes in policy direction in the process of final approval and reporting prior to the report (this provision has a system with which approval and revised forces are stored and preserved in all in the electronic re-determination system). However, this case concerns whether additional output or copy reproduced using the same contents as the original report document is a presidential record after the final report or approval is completed, or the additional output or copy reproduced using the reproduction device is different from that of the original report. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as the ground for the above provision that additional output or copy constitutes a presidential record.

Therefore, the above prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.

바) 미국 대통령기록물법[Presidential Records Act(44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)] 제2201조 제2항은 대통령기록물을 정의하면서, 편의상 생산된 것이 명백한 여분의 사본은 대통령기록물에 포함되지 않는다고 규정(Presidential records does not include any documentary materials that are extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.)하고 있다. 이 같은 외국의 입법례도 참작할 필요가 있다.

G) In light of the provisions of the current Presidential Records Act or the actual status of management, the current law can be divided into records created and records which have not yet been managed as Presidential records and records which have been transferred to the record repository or the Presidential Archives of the Presidential record creation institution or the Presidential Archives. If the additional output or reproduction is transferred to the record repository or the Presidential Archives of the Presidential record creation institution separately from the original of the report document, and if the additional reproduction or reproduction was started to be classified and managed as the Presidential records, then the additional reproduction or reproduction may be deemed to have newly acquired the qualification of the Presidential records at that time. However, it cannot be said that all documents from the first output stage that does not have been registered and managed as the Presidential records fall under the Presidential records, and the act of destruction or leakage should be punished.

4) Whether a crime of violating the Presidential Records Management Act is established

Defendant 1 delivered documents to Nonindicted 2 via Nonindicted 3, using the electronic file date of the documents stored in his official computer in the office of ○○○○ secretary. However, as seen earlier, additional output or duplication does not constitute presidential records. Therefore, each violation of the Presidential records against Defendants due to the delivery of each of the documents listed in the attached Table No. 1 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime (as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the documents listed in the attached Table No. 3 are delivered to Nonindicted 3. Moreover, Defendant 1 delivered the documents stating the contents necessary to confirm facts at the preparation stage of each document listed in the No. 2 and No. 4, and this is deemed to have been produced at the time of approval or report, and the production has to be completed at the time of final approval or report, and thus, it does not constitute a conclusion on presidential records even if the prosecutor’s assertion that there is no difference in the conclusion.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendants shall be acquitted in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment shall be announced to the Defendants. However, the charges of violating the Presidential Records Management Act on Defendant 1 due to delivery of documents related to the replacement of the chief of the office of the instant letter of statement are found guilty of the crime of divulgence of official secrets in the judgment in a mutually competitive relationship, so long as

D. Determination on the defendants' leakage of official secrets

1) Whether the content of each document listed in the attached list of crimes (2) constitutes a secret for official duties

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 127 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who is or was a public official shall divulge a secret in the course of performing his/her duties pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes. Article 127 of the same Act provides that “official secrets pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes” shall not be limited to the matters specified as confidential under the Acts and subordinate statutes or as classified as confidential, and shall include not only the matters classified as confidential depending on political, military, diplomatic, economic, and social needs, but also the matters of considerable benefits that the Government, public offices, or citizens are not known from an objective and general point of view, but also include the matters of considerable benefits that are not known to the outside from an objective and general point of view. This crime aims not to protect the secret itself, but to protect the interests that may be dangerous by infringement on the duty of confidentiality of public officials, i.e., the interests that are threatened by the divulgence of the secret (see

B) Whether the contents stated in each document listed in Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 10 of the annexed list of crimes constitute a secret for official duties

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, since there is a risk that the disclosure of each of the above documents may threaten the normal inspection function of the Presidential Secretariat, it is reasonable to view that the content of each of the above documents contains a secret in the line of duty.

(1) Each of the documents listed in the annexed Table Nos. 1 through 10 is identical to the documents listed in the annexed Table Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, and 17 in the order of each of the documents listed in the annexed Table Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12 through 17. Of each of the above documents, each of the remaining documents except the documents listed in the annexed Table Nos. 9 and the documents listed in the annexed Table Nos. 4 of the Crimes List No. 9 (the documents listed in the annexed Table No. 9 and the crime List No. 4) among the documents is likely to cause a problem related to the presidential relative due to a third party, etc., who is a relative of the president, who assumes the friendship with the non-indicted No. 2 couple, and that the non-indicted 2 couple’s contact with the above third party shall be confirmed, and the preparation process, contents, etc. of each

(2) If each of the above documents stated in the results of the investigation of intelligence and the measures taken in the future are leaked, it is likely for the relevant person to conceal and manipulate evidence regarding the facts of corruption. Moreover, each of the above documents contains a majority of the information about the personal information of the relevant person, such as his/her personal information, or about his/her privacy, such as tax evasion, internal relations, and misconduct such as internal golf, and thus, if leaked, it would result in a failure of the presidential secretary to properly protect the privacy of the relevant persons held through an inspection.

C) Whether the content of the instant document related to the replacement of the chief secretary constitutes a secret for official duties

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that the contents stated in the above documents constitute public secrets.

(1) Details of documents

The above documents contain the following: ① Nonindicted 1’s members of the so-called “the meeting of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a office and an administrative secretary, etc.: (a) reported the internal situation of the office of a branch of a branch of the office of a branch of a branch of a branch of the office of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of the office of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a government, and presented his opinion; (b) Nonindicted 1 sent his opinion on the adjustment of internal personnel of the government and the office of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a government,

(2) Whether it constitutes a secret of official duty

(A) Generally, since there is a concern for concealment and manipulation of facts, such as destroying evidence subject to investigation and inspection, in a case where overlapping materials are leaked, it is not permissible to divulge such materials without permission. However, even if overlapping materials are merely a mere rumor or a statement of opinion of a specific person, if it is a mere statement of a specific person, it is difficult to view that there is a risk that it may substantially be a secret protection or that the leakage may hinder the function of the investigative and inspection agency.

(B) However, the above documents are based on the intelligence collected at the Office of the President or the Office of the Secretary of the Office of the Office of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’

(C) The secretary general of the ○○○○○○○ Office is a subordinate organization of the Presidential Secretariat that performs the duties of inspecting public officials, inspecting public officials’ misconduct, verifying personnel affairs, and managing the presidential commuting, and thus, further inspection may be conducted on the basis of the above documents that include intelligence and the source of information and the grounds therefor. There is no detailed provision in support of the above documents. However, there is a need to verify the facts in the situation where the articles partially related to the above documents, such as the presidential secretary general and the resignation of office, are reported or written, and there is no question. Considering the circumstances at that time, the preparation and reporting process of the above documents, and the importance of the matters indicated in the documents, it is deemed that the above documents could have been sufficiently utilized as inspection materials at the level of the presidential secretary office in the future.

(D) As alleged by the defense counsel, there is no material supporting the fact that the content of the said document is true, but at the stage of the presidential Secretariat not completing confirmation and measures regarding the content of the said document, regardless of whether the content stated in the document was authentic or not, there is considerable interest in not only the content of the said document, but also the fact that the said document was collected and retained at the level of the secretary general for ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and there is also a value to be protected as confidential. If the content of the said document is disclosed without due process

2) Whether Defendant 1 delivered each of the documents listed in the annexed list of crimes (2) to Nonindicted 3

A) Each of the documents listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 10 is identical to the documents listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, and 17 in the order of each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, and 17. The prosecutor delivered each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to Nonindicted 3, but the prosecutor was deemed to have included the secrets of official duties only among the documents listed in the list No. 1, which is part of the above list No. 2, and thus, the Defendants’ act of

Therefore, in determining the value of the evidence as to the facts charged in the course of the leakage of official duties against the Defendants, it is necessary to determine the credibility of each part of the statements made by the parties to the case, and what is the objective material corresponding thereto, by comprehensively examining not only the delivery of each document indicated in the list of crimes (2) but also the delivery of each document indicated in the list of crimes (1).

B) From the above perspective, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by this court’s duly adopted and examined evidence, Defendant 1’s delivery of each of the other documents except for the documents Nos. 3 from among the documents listed in the annexed Table No. 3 among the documents listed in the annexed Table No. 1 to Nonindicted 3 is recognized (hereinafter “each of the documents delivered by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 3”).

(1) As seen earlier, each of the documents listed in Nos. 1 through 8, 11, and 17 of the Attached Table Offense List (1) shall include the details of confirmation of facts related to the collection of intelligence against a person who assumes a false or exaggerated relation with the President and the President’s relative or in a case where there is room for concern that inappropriate measures of the President’s relative might be at issue.

In particular, each document written in Nos. 1, 5 through 8, and 11, written in the official report form in the name of the head of ○○○○○○ secretary, clearly states the purport of notifying the anticipated problems on the part of Nonindicted Party 2 in the future. As such, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 delivered the additional output or reproduction of each of the above documents to Nonindicted Party 3, as the method for taking the above measures after the completion of the reporting procedure.

In each of the documents listed in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the above list of crimes, the purport of confirming factual relations or informing Nonindicted 2 of the overlap. In light of the content and the wording of the above two documents, it is reasonable to deem that the above two documents and their contents and form were delivered to Nonindicted 3 prior to the preparation of the above two documents. However, inasmuch as the documents were delivered to Nonindicted 2 in advance with the content and form similar to the above two documents, they did not indicate “measures” such as the documents indicated in subparagraphs 1, 5, and 8, and 11 of the list of crimes, it is difficult to conclude that the above two documents were delivered. However, inasmuch as the documents were delivered to Nonindicted 2 in advance, as the contents and form similar to the above two documents have already been delivered, it is difficult to conclude that the above two documents were delivered.

(2) Details of statement of the person involved in the case

(A) Defendant 1’s statement

(1) Statement of prosecution

Defendant 1, who was investigated by the prosecution, denied the delivery of documents to Nonindicted 3 until the 9th statement, and reversed the previous statement to the effect that Defendant 1 delivered documents under Defendant 2’s order to the effect that “I am aware of all things” at the 10th statement.

(1) Defendant 1 stated in the Prosecutor’s Office that the document pertaining to “Nonindicted 2’s Non-Indicted 1” was not prepared in compliance with Defendant 2’s order, but Defendant 1 stated to the effect that “Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to deliver the document to Defendant 1 a copy of the inner section, and delivered the document to the third party.” Moreover, Defendant 1 stated that the document, other than the official report form, was written as a reference material, and was sent to Defendant 2 by drawing up the document in the official report form, and was also reported to Defendant 2, and that the document “(written name omitted)” with the content similar to that of the instant Non-Indicted 2’s written report form, was also delivered to Nonindicted 3 (Defendant 11 Prosecutor’s protocol of suspect examination).

In addition, Defendant 1 stated that he sent the last copy of the instant non-indicted 3, which was prepared in the name of the office of the secretary of the ○○○○○○ secretary, to Nonindicted 3. Defendant 1 stated that the delivery of the instant documents related to the personnel affairs trend of the police officer was not well memory. However, Defendant 3 stated that Nonindicted 3 received the said documents and made a statement that “if Nonparty 3’s memory is certain, the delivery of the documents will take place because the said documents would have been made.” (The Prosecutor’s interrogation protocol No. 12).

On February 4, 2014, Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 2 carried out the documents related to the personnel affairs of the police officer of the instant case as the electromagnetic wave of the said documents and carried out them out to Nonindicted 3, and that Defendant 1 sent the documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary of the instant letter to Nonindicted 3 as in the previous statement. In addition, Defendant 1, upon receipt of each of the documents indicated in paragraph (1) of the crime list, made a relatively detailed statement as to the preparation process, content, and measures after preparing the documents (the Prosecutor’s interrogation protocol No. 13).

Defendant 1 stated that “Defendant 2 instructed Nonindicted 3 to deliver the instant documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary of the secretary general. The said documents were written to the extent that they were unsatisfyed.” (The Prosecutor’s interrogation protocol No. 14).

(2) Legal statements.

However, in this court, Defendant 1 testified that there was no delivery of the instant non-indicted 2’s written statement and the press trend documents related to the personnel affairs of police officers, and reversed his prosecutorial statement several times, and changed his position in the process of Defendant 1’s examination to the effect that he did not deliver each document listed in No. 1, No. 3, and No. 15 of the attached Table of Crimes. However, in this court, Defendant 1 stated clearly to the effect that “Although the content of some documents was modified, there was no document that deleted the title, date of preparation, and no document was delivered. When Nonindicted 3 wanting to ask Nonindicted 3 in connection with the non-indicted 2’s husband, there was a book using the main model, but there was no document delivered in the ○○○○○ secretary.”

(B) Defendant 2’s statement

Defendant 2 stated in the prosecutor’s office and this court that Defendant 1 did not instruct the delivery of each document listed in the separate sheet of crime (1). However, Defendant 2 stated to the effect that there was no fact that the documents listed in the separate sheet of crime (1) Nos. 12 through 17 were written, but Defendant 2 stated that the fact that he instructed Defendant 2 to deliver the document by processing so that it cannot be identified that the content indicated in each of the above documents is a Cheongdae documents.

(C) Each statement made by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2

When Nonindicted 3 made the first statement with the Prosecutor’s Office at the time of making a statement, Nonindicted 3’s statement to the effect that “(i) was first known of the existence of the documents related to the replacement report of the chief of the post office of this case.” However, at the third statement, Nonindicted 3 continued to make a statement by Defendant 1’s statement to the effect that Defendant 1 received “(s) documents”, including the media trend documents related to the personnel affairs of the police officer of this case, and Nonindicted 3’s statement to the effect that Defendant 1 received each document as indicated in No. 4, No. 8, and No. 17 of the list of crimes, and Nonindicted 3’s statement to the effect that he received each of the documents as indicated in No. 1, No. 12 and No. 13, and Nonindicted 14 and No. 15.

(3) Of Defendant 1’s prosecutorial statement, the part of the statement to the effect that all of the documents of this case were delivered to Nonindicted 3 among the documents of this case is consistent with objective facts in view of the following: (a) Defendant 1’s separate presentation of each of the documents of this case from the prosecutor’s prosecutorial statement and confirmed it; (b) Defendant 1 made a statement by means of making a statement as to the preparation process, content, preparation, measures, etc.; (c) Defendant 1’s consistent and detailed contents were delivered; and (d) Defendant 1’s statement appears to have no reason to make a false statement to the effect that the documents of this case were delivered to Defendant 2’s prosecutorial statement; (c) even if it is deemed that the part of the statement to the effect that the delivery of each of the documents of this case was delivered in accordance with Defendant 2’s direction, it is difficult to view that the part of each of the above documents

Even if Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted only when they reached this court, Defendant 1 stated in the prosecutor’s office that “Nonindicted 3 had already received documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary of the instant letter office and the press trends related to the personnel affairs of police officers,” and had the aforementioned two documents delivered by the prosecutor. However, in light of the aforementioned Defendant 1’s statement made by the prosecutor, it does not appear that Defendant 1 made a false statement unfavorable to himself solely based on the above mistake.

(4) Defendant 1 reversed his prosecutorial statement in this court on the facts of delivery of the instant documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary and the press trends related to the personnel affairs of police officers. However, in light of Defendant 1’s prosecutorial statement, the contents of the prosecutorial statement and the prosecutorial statement of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3, and the circumstances at the time when Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 deemed that it was difficult for Defendant 1 to receive each of the above documents, which were the official report of the presidential secretary, to be delivered to Nonindicted 3 on a different channel that was not via Defendant 1, and that there was no need or reason to do so, it is difficult for Defendant 1 to believe the aforementioned re-statement statement, and therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 1 delivered the documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary of the instant secretary and the press trends related to the personnel affairs of police officers to Nonindicted 3.

(5) In addition, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 changed his statement to the effect that he did not deliver each of the documents listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 15 in the annexed list of crimes. However, the documents listed in the annexed list Nos. 1 and 2 are different from the documents described in the annexed list Nos. 2. According to the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s statement of the parties involved in the instant case as seen earlier, each of the documents listed in the annexed list Nos. 12 and 13, which correspond to the reference materials for each of the documents listed in Nos. 12 and 13, can be recognized as having been delivered to Nonindicted 3. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that each of the documents listed in the annexed list Nos. 12 and 15, which correspond to each of the documents listed in the annexed list No. 12 and 13, was delivered to Nonindicted 3 as well. However, according to the aforementioned two documents, the documents were also delivered to Nonindicted 3’s court statements.

C) However, in light of the following: (a) the documents indicated in the [Attachment 3] Nos. 1 and 3 are identical to the documents indicated in the above list Nos. 4; (b) the preparation date was more than the date of the preparation of the documents indicated in the above Nos. 4; and (c) the “measures’s result” portion of the documents indicated in the above Nos. 3 is somewhat vague; (d) the confirmation and measures taken by the police until August 17, 2013, the preparation date was written; (e) while the “measures’ proposal” portion of the documents indicated in the above Nos. 4 were written by Nonindicted 2; and (e) there was a summary of the contents in the list of the documents indicated in the above Nos. 4 above; and (e) the said documents were written by Nonindicted 3 to the extent that there was little possibility that the documents were delivered to the end date, and (e) the said documents were written by the said Nos. 3 and the said documents were written by the said Nonindicted 43730.

3) Whether Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to deliver documents

A) Furthermore, as the above facts charged are premised on, whether Defendant 1’s delivery of the above documents was made by Defendant 2’s instruction.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, Defendant 2 ordered Defendant 1 to deliver each of the other documents except the documents related to the replacement theory of the chief secretary of the instant letter and the press trend documents related to the personnel affairs of the police officer of this case among each of the documents of this case to Nonindicted 3.

(1) In light of the process and method of preparing and reporting the documents of this case, and the content and the text of the statement as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that each of the documents of this case or similar documents was delivered to Nonindicted 2, respectively, for the purpose of confirming facts with respect to Nonindicted 2’s husband and wife prior to the preparation of the written report, or for the purpose of demanding Nonindicted 2 to pay attention to the persons involved in the corruption. In a case where the documents itself is premised on Nonindicted 2’s prior confirmation or post-report, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2, who took part in the whole process of preparing and reporting the documents, was naturally aware of the delivery of the documents, and furthermore, Defendant 1 was consistently instructed by the prosecutor’s office and this court, and by Defendant 2, to the effect that each of the documents was consistently instructed to prepare and deliver the documents.

(2) From February 26, 2013 to April 5, 2013, Defendant 1 introduced Nonindicted 3 from Defendant 2 to Nonindicted 3 and delivered documents to Nonindicted 3 from that time. On January 6, 2014, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 first met with Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 3. Until Defendant 1 becomes aware of Nonindicted 2’s actual draft and delivery of documents by face-to-face meeting Nonindicted 2, Defendant 1 appears to have no reason to deliver the official report written in the name of the secretary office for ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, without Defendant 2’s instruction.

B) However, among the facts charged above, the part that Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to deliver documents related to the replacement of the chief secretary of the instant letter office cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

(1) Direct evidence consistent with the fact that Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to deliver the documents related to the theory of replacing the chief secretary of the instant letter to Nonindicted 2 is the same as Defendant 1’s statement at the prosecution. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 expressed his intention to completely reverse the previous statement at the time of preparing the 10th protocol of suspect examination, and stated that Defendant 2 sent the final copy of the said documents to Nonindicted 3 in accordance with the direction of Defendant 2 at the time of preparing the 12 through 14th protocol of suspect examination; however, in this court, Defendant 1 stated that it was not true to change the statement and deliver the said documents to Nonindicted 3; accordingly, Defendant 1’s legal statement as to whether Defendant 2 received the order from Defendant 2 to deliver the said documents does not exist. As such, there is no consistency in the part concerning the documents related to the theory of replacing the chief secretary of the instant letter of suspect among Defendant 1’s prosecutor’s and court statements. Thus, Defendant 1’s order alone does not recognize the fact that Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1’s statement.

(2) The documents related to the replacement report of the head of the instant letter office are written and reported in the name of the office of ○○○ secretary, and are the official report documents, and the primary confirmation of intelligence following the inspection activities of the presidential office is written in the attached Form Nos. 1 through 8, and 11, the documents related to the replacement report of the head of the instant letter office have a common aspect with each of the documents listed in the attached Table No. 1 to 8, and 11. However, the content and form of the documents related to the replacement report of the head of the said

In other words, the documents related to the replacement theory of the above secretary general are written only with respect to the replacement theory of the secretary general of the presidential secretary general and the administrative secretary general, and they do not contain any content related to the presidential secretary general. Unlike the documents delivered in this case, the purport that the contents of the documents should be notified or confirmed to Nonindicted 2 under the title of the lawsuit, such as “measures Proposal” and “convening matters,” is not stated. Therefore, the above documents are deemed not to have been scheduled to be delivered to Nonindicted 2. Therefore, even though they were reported to Defendant 2, the secretary general and the secretary general, the contents of the above documents alone stated in the documents cannot be anticipated to have been delivered to Nonindicted 2.

(3) According to Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3’s prosecutorial statement and court statement, Nonindicted 2 heard the so-called “unified snow” from around December 2013 to Nonindicted 1’s office, which Nonindicted 3 had been engaged in going against himself. Nonindicted 3 transferred the examination of Nonindicted 2’s official opinion to Defendant 1. After that, Nonindicted 2, around January 6, 2014, when the above documents were prepared, he was first viewed Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 2 was first viewed with Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 2 had no reason to view Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 1’s official statement at the prosecutorial office and this court on the process of having been established with Defendant 1, and Non-Indicted 3’s official statement at the office and this court consistent with the purport that Nonindicted 3’s official statement was not made, but it was not made to Defendant 1 and Defendant 3’s official statement at the end of his official statement.

In light of the circumstances in which Defendant 1 was fully aware of the interest of Nonindicted 2’s Nonindicted 1 in relation to the Non-Indicted 1, etc. and for which Nonindicted 2 was asked by Nonindicted 2, the possibility that Defendant 1 delivered the said documents to Nonindicted 3 without the direction of Defendant 2 cannot be ruled out.

(4) Meanwhile, in the prosecutor’s office and court, Nonindicted 3 consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and the court that “the documents related to the replacement of the chief of the instant secretary and the press trends related to the police officer’s personnel affairs. Defendant 1 sent the said documents to Cheong Man-Ba, and Defendant 2 told Nonindicted 2 that she would bring his speech well.” Since the documents related to the police officer’s personnel affairs appears to have been delivered from Nonindicted 2’s standpoint, it cannot be ruled out that Defendant 1 was partly related to the said documents while delivering the said documents to Nonindicted 2 on personal grounds, and that it was possible to deliver the said documents along with the replacement of the chief of the said secretary’s office, including Nonindicted 1’s counter-indicted 2’s counter-indicted 2.

(5) Ultimately, the prosecutor appears to have included the above facts in the charged facts under the premise that Defendant 2 instructed the delivery of the above documents under political consideration regardless of the inspection work of the Presidential Secretariat that Defendant 2 had been in charge. However, this is merely merely merely merely an abstract part of the prosecution, and there is no evidence that conforms to the above facts was submitted to this court.

C) Ultimately, the fact that Defendant 2 ordered Defendant 1 to deliver the remainder of the documents except the documents related to the replacement of the chief secretary to Nonindicted 2 via Nonindicted 3, among the documents delivered by Defendant 1, is acknowledged, but it is not recognized that he ordered Defendant 2 to deliver the documents related to the replacement of the chief secretary. Therefore, among the above facts charged, Defendant 2’s disclosure of confidential information about Defendant 2 through the delivery of the documents related to the replacement of the chief secretary cannot be found guilty without further review.

4) Whether the disclosure constitutes a divulgence

A) The term “disclosure” under Article 127 of the Criminal Act refers to any act of notifying a third party of a secret that he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties. However, in cases where an act of notifying a third party of a secret that he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties is expected to be a duty under the law, such act of notification

B) Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, Defendant 1’s delivery of each of the documents listed in the annexed Table Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 10 to Nonindicted 3 in accordance with Defendant 2’s order constitutes the performance of duties under the law, and the Defendants’ delivery of each of the above documents to Nonindicted 2 constitutes a performance of duties under the law. It cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ disclosure of official secrets to Nonindicted 3 or Nonindicted 2.

(1) As seen earlier, each of the documents listed in the separate sheet of crimes (2) was prepared within the scope of the lawful special inspection duty of the Presidential Secretariat.

(2) Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the act of delivering documents prepared as above or documents similar thereto to the President’s relatives was conducted within the scope of the duty of special inspection by the Presidential Secretariat.

(A) As seen earlier, Defendant 1 issued documents to Nonindicted 3 for the purpose of investigating the case and preparing a report, and confirmed the factual relations from Nonindicted 2, when it is necessary to verify the relationship with Nonindicted 2’s husband and wife, etc., and confirmed the factual relations from Nonindicted 2 by conducting an investigation into the person who assumes the friendship with Nonindicted 2’s husband and wife, and, if it is necessary to take a caution against Nonindicted 2’s husband and wife, later delivered documents containing the pertinent documents or any other similar content.

(B) However, in a case where Defendant 1 delivered documents to Nonindicted 2 as a means to confirm the facts and as a means to confirm the facts, the circumstance that Nonindicted 2 was confirmed on the facts from the subsequent report clearly stated in the following report. In addition, in a case where it was deemed necessary to take a caution as an ex post facto measure against Nonindicted 2, the pertinent documents contain “measures Proposal”, etc. to the effect that Nonindicted 2’s husband and wife would be able to take measures to care of a person who assumes friendship or exaggerations the friendship by notifying Nonindicted 2 of the problems revealed as a result of the investigation, and Defendant 1 delivered each of the instant documents by implementing the above “

Where a fact of corruption corresponding to a crime is confirmed or has been collected through an inspection of the presidential relative, it is reasonable to view that the presidential secretary may request or refer the investigation to an investigation agency, and that the act of notifying the President relative of the fact of corruption or collected intelligence in advance, which is a party to the investigation agency, inasmuch as the act of notifying the fact of corruption or collected intelligence in advance does not constitute a crime of corruption, it shall not be permitted as an act of infringing on the investigative agency’s duty of investigation. However, in cases where the fact of corruption verified as a result of inspection does not constitute a crime of corruption but includes the contents of improper personal information of the presidential relative, and where it is possible to prevent corruption in the future, even though it did not actually occur, or where it is necessary to prevent corruption in the future, it is also reasonable to view that the presidential secretary may have the third party related to the presidential relative or corruption take care of not complying with the purpose of the Presidential secretary’s inspection and inspection. On the contrary, it is against the purport of the Presidential secretary’s duty of checking or collecting the fact of corruption or the collected information.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the delivery of the above documents is carried out in the extension of the preparation of documents, and is within the same scope of inspection duties as in the same way.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since the facts charged regarding the disclosure of the above secrets to the Defendants (excluding the judgment of conviction as to Defendant 1 due to the delivery of the documents related to the replacement statement of the chief secretary of the letter of statement in this case) fall under a case where there is no proof of crime, each of the defendants is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in this part is publicly announced in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Violation of the Presidential Records Management Act against Defendant 1 and the point of harboring each public document;

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 2014. 2. 10.경 서울 종로구 청와대로 1에 있는 청와대 ▷▷▷▷비서관실 ○○○○비서관실에서, 직무수행과 관련하여 생산하여 보관하고 있던 이 사건 비서실장 교체설 관련 문건 등 별지 범죄일람표 (3) 기재와 같이 ○○○○비서관실에서 생산하여 보관 중인 14건의 대통령기록물을 청와대 밖으로 가지고 나가 서울 중구 (주소 8 생략) (사무실명 생략)(이하 ‘(사무실명 생략)’이라 한다)과 서울 ★★구 (주소 9 생략)에 있는 ★★경찰서 (사무실명 2 생략) 등지에 보관하였다.

As a result, the Defendant released and concealed Presidential records produced and received by assisting agencies in relation to the performance of the duties of the President without permission from public institutions, and concealed documents used by public offices.

B. Determination on violation of the Presidential Records Management Act

1) Facts recognized

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are recognized:

가) 별지 범죄일람표 (3) 순번 1, 2, 11 내지 14 기재 각 문건은 순서대로 별지 범죄일람표 (1) 순번 9, 8, 1, 2, 16, 17 기재 각 문건과 동일한 문건으로, 위 각 문건의 작성 및 보고과정, 피고인이 피고인 2에게 위 각 문건을 3부 출력하여 교부한 것과 별도로 1부 더 출력하거나 사본하여 개인 파일철에 보관하게 된 경위는 앞서 본 바와 같다. 피고인은 2014. 2. 10.경 청와대 ▷▷▷▷비서관실 ○○○○비서관실에서 이임하면서, 위와 같이 개인 파일철에 보관하고 있던 위 각 문건의 추가 출력본 또는 복사본을 가지고 나갔고, 이를 2014. 2. 12.부터 2014. 2. 16.까지 (사무실명 생략)에 보관하였다가, 이후 ★★경찰서 (사무실명 2 생략)에 보관하였다.

B) The documents listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 through 9 are those in which the content of the investigation and opinion on the measures regarding the intelligence by the presidential secretary and the administrative secretary, etc., and the documents listed in the Nos. 10 are those in which the attached list Nos. 3 through 6, 8, and 9 as well as the result of the measures taken by the head of the Do governor’s office related thereto. The documents listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 through 6, 8, and 9 were prepared after the Defendant directly examined, or were delivered from the originator after the Defendant participated in the investigation, as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 11, and 14 as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 3 through 6, 8, 9, and each of the documents described in the separate sheet No. 10 were printed out or copied into the personal file No. 1, 2, 14, or 14, and were stored in the personal file.

C) The Defendant asserts that the documents listed in the [Attachment 7] No. 7] were not kept in his/her possession with the documents first considered. However, according to Nonindicted 16’s prosecutorial and legal statement from March 8, 2012 to October 31, 2014, the above documents were prepared by Nonindicted 16, who was in charge of the duties of gathering and planning while serving as the administrative secretary of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s officer’s investigation. Nonindicted 16 sent the above documents to the Defendant at the request of Nonindicted 16 to the effect that “the above documents need to be submitted to the National Assembly’s request for data or to respond to press reports.” In the process, the Defendant appears to have increased his/her speech and stored in his/her personal files with the Defendant’s respective office’s main office.

2) Determination

The additional output or reproduction of Presidential records shall not be deemed as Presidential records, and the act of divulging it does not constitute a violation of the Presidential Records Management Act.

Examining the above facts based on such legal principles, each of the documents of this case cannot be viewed as Presidential records merely because they additionally printed out or copied the official report or basic data, etc. under the name of the ○○○○ secretary, or the ○○○ secretary, in order to use both documents of this case for personal reference, etc.

Therefore, since the part of the violation of the Presidential Records Management Act on the premise that the documents taken out of each of the above charges are Presidential records does not need to be examined further, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, the court acquitted the defendant in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and publicly announced the summary of the judgment in accordance with the main sentence of

C. Determination as to the concealment of each public document

1) Summary of the assertion

As the Defendant kept the documents of this case for personal reference in his duties, they do not constitute public documents. Moreover, since the Defendant had each of the above documents at the Cheongbu Department, the original documents or files of each of the above documents were preserved within the Cheongbu Department at the time of the Cheongbu Department, there is no fact that the Defendant “scambing” or harming the utility of the documents.

2) Determination

가) 이 법원이 적법하게 채택, 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 이 사건 각 반출 문건을 청와대로부터 반출하여 (사무실명 생략) 또는 ★★경찰서 (사무실명 2 생략)에 보관한 사실은 인정되나, 이로써 피고인이 공용서류를 은닉하거나 기타 방법으로 그 효용을 해하였다고 보기 어렵다.

(1) Inasmuch as it is reasonable to interpret that “documents used by public offices” under Article 141 of the Criminal Act includes all documents used and kept by public offices, the original documents ought to be printed out and copied as required for performing official duties, and the output or reproduction of the original documents kept by public offices also constitutes “documents used by public offices” like the original documents.

(2) However, as seen earlier, each of the documents of this case is merely an official report or a copy of the documents in the name of the ○○○○○○○’s secretary office, or the basic data thereof, in order for the Defendant to use them for the purpose of his duties, etc. Therefore, each of the above documents cannot be deemed a public document, since there is no room for the Defendant to be provided for the Defendant’s official duties at the time the period of his duty assignment expires. Moreover, since each of the documents of this case was handed over to Defendant 2, the documents will be destroyed at the time of the completion of the dispatch of the Defendant’s duties, and they should not be transferred or delivered to the Defendant’s superior or his successor.

(3) As above, the documents of this case’s release are merely the additional copies or copies of the original documents of the official report document of Cheongdae-dae, and even if the Defendant possessed them and kept them in his office, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant “scaming” or “harming their utility by any other means,” and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act infringed on the function of the public office.

B) Ultimately, even though the Defendant’s act is subject to punishment under other Acts or violates the regulations on the security of the audience, and thus may constitute grounds for disciplinary action, it cannot be punished as a crime of concealing public documents under the Criminal Act. Therefore, since each of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the part of concealing public documents among the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary

3. The point of accusation against Defendant 1

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) The process of divulging documents from the Cheongdae

피고인은 2014. 2. 10.경 자신이 서울지방경찰청 ♠♠♠♠♠으로 내정되었다는 소식을 듣고, 별지 범죄일람표 (3) 기재 각 대통령기록물 등을 서울 서대문구 미근동 209에 있는 경찰청 내 ◁◁◁◁수사대에 보관하던 수사첩보, 수사자료 등 피고인의 ◁◁◁◁수사대 짐과 함께 2014. 2. 12.경 (사무실명 생략)으로 옮겨 그 곳에 위 짐을 정리해놓은 채 약 4일 가량 자리를 비웠으나, 결국 피고인이 서울★★경찰서 ♥♥♥♥♥♥으로 발령이 나자, 2014. 2. 16.경 다시 위 짐을 정리하여 서울★★경찰서 (사무실명 2 생략)로 옮겼다.

그런데 2014. 2. 15.경 위 서울지방경찰청 ♠♠♠♠에서 토요일 당직 근무 중이던 위 ♠♠♠♠ 경찰관 공소외 17이 (사무실명 생략)에 들어가 피고인이 보관 중이던 위 청와대 문건과 ◁◁◁◁수사대 수사자료ㆍ수사첩보의 대부분을 복사한 다음, 2014. 2. 20.경 ♠♠♠♠ 동료 경찰관인 망 공소외 18에게 위 복사본을 전달하고, 위 공소외 18은 그 무렵 평소 친분이 있던 세계일보 공소외 7 기자에게 위 복사본 중 ‘청와대 행정관 비위’ 관련 문건[별지 범죄일람표 (3) 순번 3 내지 7] 등 일부를 휴대폰 카카오톡 사진으로 촬영하여 보내준 다음, 2014. 5. 8.경 위 복사본을 공소외 7에게 넘겨주었다.

2) The background leading up to the inspection of the Blue House and the withdrawal of documents by the Defendant

On the other hand, on April 2, 2014, based on the documents related to the "Cheating of the administrative bureau in Blue House" received from the above non-indicted 18, the above non-indicted 7 published annually an article on April 2, 2014 on the world's daily bulletin, including the "Non-Indicted 7's privilege of exemption from liability," "Non-Indicted 7's public service ELLI", "it has been written on April 3, 2014 by receiving the government office, the government office, and the government office's card," "if there is more than five office employees who joined the government office," and around April 10, 2014, the defendant was designated as the outflow of the documents to Non-Indicted 7, and was subject to inspection by the Cheongju and the Ministry of Cheongjunan.

Since then, the Defendant heard from Nonindicted 7 the fact that he was a police officer in the process of continuing contact with Nonindicted 7 due to the leakage of documents, and around May 10, 2014, Nonindicted 7 perused the said documents from Nonindicted 7 before the building located in the 1-158 Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, and collected copies of the said documents from Nonindicted 7 before the Financial Services Commission in front of the building located in 25.

피고인은 위 유출 문건 회수 과정에서 공소외 7이 정보 제공자로부터 건네받은 문건들이 자신이 청와대에서 작성하거나 보관하다가 유출한 문건 중의 일부이며, 심지어 청와대 파견 전 경찰청 ◁◁◁◁수사대에 보관하다가 위 청와대 유출 문건과 함께 (사무실명 생략)에 옮겨놓은 ◁◁◁◁수사대 수사자료ㆍ수사첩보가 포함되어 있는 사실을 확인하였고, 따라서 공소외 7에게 유출된 문건은 자신이 청와대에서 가지고 나와 서울지방경찰청 ♠♠♠♠에 보관하던 문건이 복사, 유포된 것임을 알게 되었다.

(iii)an act without prejudice;

In the process of recovering documents leaked from Nonindicted 7, the Defendant, despite having known that the said documents were not stolen in the audience, prepared the following documents in order to conceal the fact that the documents were illegally taken out.

피고인은 2014. 5.말경부터 6. 초순경까지 위 서울★★경찰서 (사무실명 2 생략)에서 ‘청와대 ▷▷▷▷비서관실 파견 경찰관이 ○○○○비서관실에 있는 피고인 1의 책상 서랍에서 청와대 문건을 절취하여 청와대 밖으로 유출하고, 이를 대검범죄정보 수사관 공소외 19, 공소외 20, 공소외 21 중 1명에게, 그가 다시 경찰청 ♠♠♠♠ 경찰관에게 순차 전달한 후 세계일보 기자인 공소외 7을 통해 언론기사로 유포하였으니 그 절취ㆍ유출ㆍ유포자들을 색출하여 처리해 달라.’는 취지의 허위 사실을 적시한 ‘BH 문서도난 후 세계일보 동향’이라는 제목의 문서(이하 ‘이 사건 무고 문건’이라 한다)를 작성하여 이를 공소외 7로부터 회수한 유출 문건 사본과 함께 청와대로 제출하였다.

As a result, the Defendant reported false facts to public offices for the purpose of having the police officers working in the Do governor Do governor Office, prosecution investigators, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 21 receive criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition.

B. Determination

1) In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, the determination ought to be based on the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15767, Feb. 13, 2014).

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be acknowledged that a copy of multiple documents, including the documents of this case kept by the Defendant in (name omitted) was delivered to Nonindicted 7 through Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 18, as stated in the part regarding “1) Cheongdae documents” among the charges, as stated in the “the process of divulging documents”. However, in light of the following circumstances, such as the process of preparing the documents, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s intention was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A) Nonindicted 7 maintained a close gap with Nonindicted 18, such as exchanging communication from time to time, and provided information to each other. However, according to the record of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 18 on October 7, 2014 between Nonindicted 7 and 18, it is recognized that Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 18 attempted to conceal the actual course of leakage of each of the above documents, by dividing the conversation between Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 18, stating that “If the Defendant had expressed the attitude to live in person, Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 18, who was the Defendant, was the Defendant.”

B) In the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted 7 stated to the effect that the Defendant was a police officer only and that the Defendant was presumed to have colored the Defendant’s conversation even though he did not mention his position or position. However, in this court, it stated to the effect that the above prosecutor’s statement was made in a very difficult state to the Defendant, and that “the Defendant was a person who was aware of the Defendant at the time of entrance into the National Police Agency, and was well aware of the Defendant.” or that “the Defendant was involved in the outflow of the ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio ex officio with the Defendant.” Of the documents without this case, Nonindicted 7 and the part of “police officers working in the Flue administration,” among the documents of this case, stated to the effect that “this case’s without documents are consistent with the contents and purport of the conversation with the Defendant, and that the entire facts were partly true,” it appears that the Defendant’s credibility and credibility of the statement in the court was considerable in light of the aforementioned part as seen above.”

C) After reporting the article related to the leaked documents on the World Day from April 2, 2014 to April 4, 2014, the Defendant was subject to an investigation at the Cheongbuan Stacking Department’s Secretary around April 10, 2014. Notwithstanding the aforementioned investigation, the Defendant thought that the suspicion against himself was not resolved. As such, on April 21, 2014, the Defendant attempted to grasp Nonindicted 7’s source of information and recover the leaked documents. The Defendant attempted to transfer KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000 from April 2, 2014, to Nonindicted 7.

D) Around that time, the Defendant tried to resolve the problem through Nonindicted 2 by having Nonindicted 7 meet Nonindicted 2 and give rise to the seriousness of the leakage of documents. In light of the developments leading the Defendant to the meeting between Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 2 and the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 7, the Defendant would have expressed the way of the leakage of documents through Nonindicted 2 and intended to prevent any further leakage, instead of simply recovering the documents already leaked through Nonindicted 2 through Nonindicted 2.

E) The prosecutor asserts that the Defendant was well aware that the documents, such as the investigative intelligence report kept by the Defendant in the Gambling investigative team, were transferred to the (defluence omitted) without going through the hearing. The Defendant was aware of the fact that the documents were included in the said lag investigative team in the documents recovered from Nonindicted 7, and that the documents were not leaked from the audience. In addition, the prosecutor asserts to the purport that the Defendant prepared and submitted the instant documents by using the talks from Nonindicted 7 to the effect that the documents were leaked in order to mislead the Defendant’s mistake.

However, according to Nonindicted 7’s legal statement, it appears that Nonindicted 7 sent a copy of the leaked document to Defendant in a large bag on May 12, 2014 and delivered it in a tape. The Defendant appears to have delivered a copy of the said document received from Nonindicted 7 to Defendant 2 along with the instant paperless documents. If the Defendant, among the documents received from Nonindicted 7, was in custody in the embrative investigative team, was transferred to Defendant 7, and the Defendant was aware that there was no fact that he had been brought into the ebrative team, then the documents could not be submitted to Defendant 2. In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant did not properly confirm the documents recovered from Nonindicted 7; (b) did not confirm that the documents were delivered to Defendant 2; and (c) did not recognize that the documents were stored in the ebrative investigative team without carrying them into the ebrative team, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant was leaked.

3) Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced in accordance with the main sentence of Article 5

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 1

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 경찰공무원으로서, 2003. 3. 4.경부터 2008. 2. 29.경까지 국무총리실 ♤♤심의관실에 파견되어 행정부 공무원들의 공직기강을 점검하고 공무원들의 비위에 관한 진정 또는 첩보를 확인하여 일선 수사기관에 그 진정이나 첩보를 통보하는 업무를 담당하였다.

피고인은 공소외 6으로부터 판시 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)죄 범죄사실 기재와 같은 청탁을 받고, 2007. 3.경부터 4.경 사이 어느 밤에 서울 강남구 (주소 5 생략)에 있는 ■■■■ 앞 주차장에서, 공소외 6으로부터 비닐 쇼핑백에 들어있는 현금 5,000만 원을 교부받고, 2007. 5.경 밤 서울 강남구 (주소 6 생략)에 있는 ‘◆◆’ 주점에서, 공소외 6으로부터 1개당 시가 약 2,000만 원 상당의 1kg짜리 골드바 2개를 교부받고, 2007. 6.경부터 7.경까지 사이에 밤 위 ‘◆◆’ 주점에서 공소외 6으로부터 1개당 시가 약 2,000만 원 상당의 1kg짜리 골드바 4개를 교부받았다.

Ultimately, the Defendant received a bribe equivalent to KRW 170 million from March 2007 to July 2007 by receiving a solicitation from Nonindicted 6 to the said purport on three occasions, and received a bribe equivalent to KRW 170 million in total.

B. Determination

1) Of the facts charged above, the part of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) that the Defendant received six alleys from Nonindicted 6 to a bribe is found guilty.

2) However, among the facts charged above, the part that the Defendant received KRW 50 million in cash from Nonindicted 6 in addition to the above six frames is hard to believe the prosecutor's office and the court's statement consistent with it as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Therefore, the facts charged regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) in which the defendant received a bribe of approximately KRW 170 million in total constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the defendant found guilty of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Choi Chang-young (Presiding Judge)