beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The fact that the Defendant did not investigate the Defendant’s mother G, which was included in the above list, by failing to make a request for the provision of communication data to 115 persons designated in accordance with the “the plan for the provision of communication data to 115 persons designated by the Jeju Provincial Police Agency for the main purpose of 2015,” although the Defendant was instructed to provide communication data to 115 persons designated by the said Provincial Police Agency, it does not constitute a crime of disclosure of official secrets. However, the fact that the Defendant’s disclosure of confidential information in official duties does not constitute a secret of the crime of disclosure of official duties, and the Defendant merely informed H (her wife and his/her ancillary) of it to a third party, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of disclosure of official duties.
3) The fact that G violated the Personal Information Protection Act and the statute of limitations, etc. do not constitute personal information as prescribed by the Personal Information Protection Act, and H, a lineal descendant of an owner of information, is not included in the third party under Article 71 Subparag. 2 of the said Act. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of abandonment of duty is established by failing to perform the duty of commission under the awareness that the duty is neglected, although there is a duty of commission to perform the duty, and the time when the duty is deserted is not all the cases where the public official neglects the duty of abstract loyalty by law, rule, etc., but it refers to the case where it is likely to impair the function of the country and cause damage to the people, such as without permission of the workplace and the waiver of the consciousness of the duty.
(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7725 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.). (B) The lower court duly adopted and investigated each of them.