A. Whether the mere reason for an intermediate document in process inside an administrative agency constitutes a statutory and professional secret

(b) The case holding that the act of the inspector of the Korean Audit and Inspection Board (Defendant) did not constitute secrets of official duties, before a resolution of the audit committee was passed on the audit report on the actual taxation status of the company's acquisition of non-business real estate by the National Tax Service;

(a) If the content is not specified or classified as confidential, and it is a matter that is classified as confidential depending on political, military, economic, or social needs or that is not included in the scope of substantial confidential information that the government, public offices, or citizens are not exposed to the public from an objective and general point of view, solely on the ground that it is an intermediate document inside an administrative agency, the sole reason that it is a process, does not constitute a statutory official secrets

Article 127 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: the defendant was a person who worked as an Inspector 4 of the Second Country and is from August 16, 1989 to August 29 of the same year; the defendant prepared an on-site audit report on the acquisition of real estate for non-business use by the National Tax Service from August 16, 1989 to prepare an on-site audit report on the basis of audit data until August 29 of the same year, and keeps one copy of the report. The above report is prepared for internal report, and it shall not be disclosed as an intermediary document in the internal process of disposal by the administrative agency after internal resolution of the audit committee for the purpose of disclosure as a result of the audit results. The contents of the report are extremely poor by a short-term investigation based on the Corporate Tax Act on 23 companies possessing real estate for non-business use, and as long as it is known by the Bank Supervisory Board, it is likely that the above report would cause damage to the company's own real estate for non-business use by comparing it with the above 90000th audit report.

2. However, the crime of disclosure of official secrets is established when a person who is or was a public official discloses official secrets under the laws and regulations. Here, the term “official secrets under the laws and regulations” is narrow and strict, rather than the term “confidential learned in the course of performing his duties” as stipulated in Article 60 of the State Public Officials Act, and does not necessarily include matters that are classified as secrets or specified as secrets under the laws and regulations, and includes matters that have considerable interests that are not disclosed from an objective and general perspective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Do282, Jun. 22, 1982). However, there is no provision or classification of secrets, and the content thereof does not include matters that are not included in the scope of actual secrets, merely because it is an intermediate document during the process of internal processing in an administrative agency, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes legal secrets.

3. Therefore, it is clear that the above report is not classified as confidential or confidential under the law or regulations, and it is not classified as such. According to the defendant's statement in this court, premise, transfer of witness, and copy of newspaper report (Evidence No. 13-22 of the submission of counsel), it is serious social problem that the government has reported the above report to the public, and it is difficult for the public to view that the public to have public interest in real estate held by the 8th National Assembly because it is hard to view that the above report is not classified as confidential or confidential under the above law. In light of the above, it is hard to view that the public interest in the 9th anniversary of the above fact that the public interest in the 4th anniversary of the above fact that the public interest in the 9th anniversary of the above fact that the public interest in real estate held by the 9th National Assembly was not high, there is no possibility that the public interest in the 19th anniversary of the above report would have been changed by the company's existing research and inspection guidelines for non-business purposes.

4. If so, the contents of the above report on the actual audit return do not include the secrets of official duties under the above law, and therefore, the act of leakage of the above report by the defendant does not constitute a crime of divulgence of official duties. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Judges Kim Jong-il