2018 Violation of the Promotion of the Electronicization of Criminal Justice Process Act

A, Public Officials

AAA, BB apartment CCC in South-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, BB apartment

Special Metropolitan City, Gyeongcheon-gu, Gyeongcheon-do

D. (Court Decision 201Da1140, May 1, 201)

Attorney Park Young-young (National Election)

July 3, 2019

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Criminal facts

B was a person who was in office AA of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office from around 20. to around 20. From around 20. to around 20., and the Defendant was a person who was in office BB of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office from around 20. to around 20.

A person who is or has been engaged in criminal justice affairs or in system support affairs upon entrustment shall not divulge, process without authority, provide for another person to use, or otherwise use for unjust purposes, any criminal justice information he/she becomes aware of in the course of performing his/her duties.

On January 20, 20, at the office of the 2nd floor D office of the Pyeongtaek-si Office of 1040 Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, the Defendant informed the Defendant of the case information of the criminal justice system (KICS) (hereinafter referred to as "kick") which is a business computer network used by the defective Defendant, connected the case search to the integrated search of the criminal justice information system (KICS) (hereinafter referred to as "kick") which is a business computer network used by the defective Defendant, and distributed that he informed the above B of the criminal justice information by telephone number number, main examination, disposition, etc. from around the time to around October 20, the Defendant informed B of the criminal justice information more than 27 times in total, as described in the attached list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant used criminal justice information that he became aware of in the course of performing his duties for an improper purpose.

Summary of Evidence

1. A suspect interrogation protocol concerning B by the prosecution;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of a personnel record card for a specific period of service B / Attachment of a report on the results of case search) 1 investigation report (Submission of inspection data and report);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Articles 15(2) and 14(3) of the Act on Promotion of the Digitalization of Criminal Justice Process; selection of fines

1. Punishment for which a sentence is to be suspended;

Fine 2,000,00 won

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day)

1. Suspension of sentence:

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. The assertion;

① Since B did not pass through the Defendant and had the authority to search criminal justice information by the kick incident search, the Defendant’s act of notifying the above information on criminal justice does not constitute “disclosure”.

② The Defendant knew that the Defendant, a commercial AA, was exposed to the fact that the Defendant was leaked to the outside for unjust purposes, and thought that it is necessary to conduct business in accordance with B’s instructions, and that he knew of criminal justice information.

Therefore, there is no intention or improper purpose of leakage, and it is no illegality because it is an occupational act.

③ The instant act does not constitute a crime because of the mistake that B was directed in relation to the business and the notification of criminal justice information.

2. Basic facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are recognized.

A. From around 20. to 20. to 20., the Defendant was in office as Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office BB, and was in charge of searching and informing the relevant persons of criminal justice information.

B. B served from around 20. to around 20. around 20, as Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office AA, from around 20.

DD is divided into E, F, G, H, II, and J. The team leader has overall control over the duties of each team, and the overall duties of each team are overall control of AA. AA is a person with full power to grant the right to search of kicks to the employees working in D.

C. The Defendant, on 20. 20. . The assignment to F at the civil service center was changed to F, and upon approval from B, the right to search the kick was granted.

D. On the other hand, B was granted the right to search from October 20 to October 20, but it was not aware of the fact that B was granted the right to search and inquire into the instant case because it was not possible for B to inquire about the instant case on one occasion while in office as AA.

E. B received a request from the suspect who had organized a friendship group with him or from those who had been in close vicinity of Incheon, Busan, Busan, and Ansan, a station where he had previously worked, to inquire about the results or the process of the case, and then asked the name and resident registration number of the party to inform the defendant of the name and resident registration number of the party, and asked the case number, the main inspection, and the disposition. The defendant visited the kick, searched the above criminal judicial information, and then informed B of the results of the search.

F. On access to the kick system, "on the request of a person other than the purpose of his/her duties, it is absolute to ask for an inquiry by the court," and "on the date the details of the case are necessarily approved within the* day." "on the pop-up shop, which is written by the advisory body, shall be sunrise."

In addition, in the column of ‘the classification of inquiries', ① civil petition consultation, ② case investigation, ③ inquiry of the person involved in the case, ④ collection/resistant investigation, ④ execution related to the seized property management/record, ④ rescue fund/state litigation, ② non-audit/inspection, ① confirmation of matters to be reported, ① detailed reasons for inquiry are subdivided into the category of items to be reported, and the column of ‘detailed reasons' refers to the entry of the reasons for inquiry into the case in the column. In addition, if the inquiry system is used for purposes other than business purposes, it is inconsistent with the relevant laws. The details of inquiry are recorded in the system, and thus the term ‘the fact' is recorded in the system.

g. When a criminal justice information is searched, the procedures shall be followed by the procedures approved by AA B after the search.

3. Determination

A. Whether the case is a divulgence

“Leakage” means any act that has yet to be known to a person who is unaware of it (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13070 decided July 9, 2015, etc.).

B The crime of this case, separate from the fact that the criminal justice information was authorized to be searched by himself,

At the time, the criminal justice information known to B is the leakage of the criminal justice information.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

(b) Whether there was an intentional or unlawful purpose of the divulgence.

1) The intention of a crime includes not only the conclusive intention but also the willful negligence, which is the intention to recognize the occurrence of the result and which is the intention to recognize it.

As long as the defendant was aware that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the criminal justice information at the time of the crime of this case according to B’s instructions or entrustment, even if he could not anticipate that he was unfairly using the criminal justice information, such as leakage to the outside, etc., the criminal justice information is recognized.

2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant disclosed criminal justice information to the Defendant for an improper purpose. The act of processing B’s unfair instructions cannot be deemed as an occupational act that prevents illegality.

① Even if the Defendant has the right to access the kick system, it is not possible to inquire freely if he/she has a private purpose, and the case inquiry is limited to what is used for business purposes. The details of inquiry are recorded in the system, and the contents of inquiry are restricted in processing criminal justice information, such as obtaining approval on the details of inquiry after making inquiry.

② The Defendant, while serving as BB, was engaged in the business of searching and informing the persons related to the instant case of criminal justice information. However, the Suwon District Court, where the Defendant mainly served, was pending in the Eunpyeong District Office, or was involved in the case. On the other hand, the cases inquired upon B’s instructions were handled by the Suwon District Court, where the Defendant and B were affiliated with, and did not were related to the duties of the person. However, the cases were handled by the Cheongwon District Court, where the Defendant and B were affiliated with, but rather, by the Cheongwon District Court.

(3) The direction of the instant inquiry was not only once but also 27 times.

④ The illegality of a criminal act committed in accordance with a lawful official order of his/her superior should be excluded pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Act. However, the illegality of a criminal act committed under the command of his/her superior cannot be avoided on the ground that he/she was unaware of the order of his/her superior in cases where a criminal act was committed in accordance with an unlawful order of his/her superior. B, regardless of his/her duties, was asked by his/her own person, and notified the defendant of criminal justice information. B’s instructions are illegal orders, and the defendant was inquired of criminal justice information for other than the purpose of business in accordance with the illegal B’s instructions or orders outside the scope of office.

3) Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. The assertion of error in law

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of his own act by mistake that does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. "It is generally accepted that the act of his own act becomes a crime but, in his own special circumstances, it does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is not punishable if there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding. Whether there is a justifiable reason or not should be determined depending on whether the act of his own act was not aware of illegality as a result of his failure to perform his own act, even though it was possible to recognize illegality, and the degree of effort necessary to recognize illegality should be determined differently according to the social group to which the actor belongs (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do528, Oct. 26, 2008).

In full view of the fact that the Defendant was in office as a public official of the prosecution for a long time, the Defendant was aware of the possibility of the case search, not the unlimited possible time when the case search was conducted through the kick, but only when the case search was recorded in detail at that time, etc., the act of reporting criminal justice information several times on individual cases to AA appears to have been an exceptional act. However, even in that process, there is no doubt as to the reasons for searching the case, or asking the enemy or reasons for the case to B during that process, it does not appear that there is a justifiable reason to believe that his act was not a crime.

Thus, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for religion

The defendant, according to B's instructions, sought criminal justice information and disclosed it to B, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the period during which the inquiry was made and the number of inquiries.

However, the crime of this case was committed in the course of disclosing the appearance of criminal justice to the branch by abusing his official authority, etc., and the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the business relationship between the defendant and B, the defendant does not have any record of criminal punishment; the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment; the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment; and the defendant did not seem to have divulged personal information from the beginning for the intended and malicious purpose; the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background leading to the crime, circumstances leading to the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered by the order, comprehensively taking into account the following factors.

Judges Park So-young