2016 Highest 4908 Disclosure of Confidential Information

A, Public Officials

Kim Jong-chul (Public Prosecution) and Lee Jong-il Park (Public Trial)

○○ General Law Firm

○○, ○○, ○○

March 8, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The Defendant served in the Office of Government Tax Affairs on January 2015, and served in the Office of Government Tax Affairs on January 21, 2015, and was dispatched to the Office of Government Criminal Affairs in the Office of Government Administration on January 21, 2015, and was engaged in duties assisting investigation at the Office of Public Prosecutor until the end of May 2015.

No public official who has been dispatched to a public prosecutor's office shall provide or divulge any confidential information acquired in the course of business, such as data related to investigation, to any third person, or use it for other purposes.

1. Nevertheless, on March 2015, the Defendant provided a way to send Kakaooooo to ○○ who works at the ○○○○○○○ who works for the 231st executive office of the Pacific Office, which was located in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, with an investigation intelligence of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office relating to “non-acceptance of money and valuables related to solicitation of tax reduction and exemption” (No. 13 October 13, 2014) on his/her cell phone, which is related to the grant of money and valuables related to solicitation of tax reduction and exemption.

2. On April 2015, the Defendant provided the data for the referral to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in relation to the “Recion of the State subsidy to the Guri Agricultural and Fishery Products Corporation,” which is an official secret at the above inspection room, by sending it to the said ○○○○ by forwarding it to his mobile phone.

Accordingly, the defendant revealed his official secrets according to the law.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Entry of the prosecutor’s statement on ○○○ in the written statement;

1. The arrest of the staff of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Corporation, the number of tax office 00 ○○, by means of the prosecution, the suspicion of defraudation of the national subsidy;

Defiscation of the original fee and detention, investigation report (the check identified by ○○ computer)

The attachment of overlapping materials and investigative intelligence materials), investigation reports (the receipt of intelligence materials and investigative intelligences)

Attachment) Each entry in the Schedule

Application of Statutes

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

Article 127 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. Defendant's assertion

The Defendant acknowledged all facts of the facts charged in the instant case, but asserts that the content of the instant documents did not have the function of the State threatened by the theory, and that it did not constitute an act of divulging confidential information in the course of performing official duties, since there was no value to protect it as confidential.

2. Determination

A. ① In the process of investigating a specific case by an investigative agency, including the prosecutor’s office, the information on the case at issue, the suspect’s liability, and what opinion a person in charge of investigation has is likely to interfere with the investigation agency’s functions of criminal investigation if disclosed outside the investigation agency. As such, the information constitutes the internal secrets of the investigative agency that should not be disclosed until a final decision on the instant case is made (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do561, Jun. 14, 200; 2013Do600, Jun. 26, 2014; 3.5) No. 1 of the prosecution’s records on the press at the time when the Defendant’s disclosure was made, and the content of each of the facts charged was not disclosed to the public (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do600, Jun. 26, 2014).

B. Therefore, the Defendant’s act of divulging it constitutes a divulgence of public secrets, and the head of the Defendant’s principal is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

The smuggling of the investigation is one of the most important factors of the investigation. Although the Defendant written up a letter that he would not leak any theft whenever he is dispatched to the public prosecutor's office, he installed a videoless app and leaked it to a mobile phone. The Defendant was leveled to deny his criminal liability rather than breaking it in the court. If the disclosed information of the Defendant was not worth protecting the secret, it would be why it would have been taken and leaked? The Defendant's assertion is the Defendant.

One behavior is inconsistent with one behavior, and it is well known to the person himself.

The execution of a sentence shall be suspended in consideration of the fact that the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment and the defendant has no past record of criminal punishment.

Judges Jeong Sung-sung