Official Secrets Leak Lawyer
Official Secrets Leak Lawyer | What Prosecutors Must Prove, and Where the Defense Fights Back
Official secrets leak (공무상비밀누설죄) under Article 127 of the Criminal Act punishes a public official or former public official who discloses secrets learned in the course of their duties. It is a crime that requires intent, and the "secret" must be information that genuinely requires official protection, not simply information marked confidential by internal rule. Many cases turn less on whether information was shared, and more on whether the accused knew it was secret and whether disclosure was truly connected to their official duties. Because a conviction can trigger separate disciplinary dismissal in addition to a criminal penalty, the practical stakes are often higher than the statutory sentence suggests.
Official Secrets Leak | What the Prosecution Must Establish
A conviction for official secrets leak requires proof of several distinct elements. If any one of them is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal or non-prosecution disposition becomes possible.
The defendant must have been a public official at the time the information was obtained, though the leak itself can occur after leaving office (Criminal Act Art. 127). Contract or part-time public workers may also fall within scope depending on their statutory status, which is itself sometimes disputed.
Courts do not treat every document stamped 'confidential' as a protected secret. The Supreme Court has held that the information must be a fact not generally known outside the organization, and one where non-disclosure serves a real, substantial interest worth protecting. Internal classification alone is not conclusive evidence of this element.
The information must have come to the defendant's knowledge in the course of performing their job (직무상 알게 된 것), not through casual conversation or a role entirely unrelated to the leak. Whether a given task was actually part of the defendant's assigned duties is frequently contested.
Disclosure can occur through spoken words, documents, messaging apps, or even implication in conversation. The prosecution must show the specific act by which the secret reached a third party, and that the recipient did not already have independent access to the same information.
Because this is an intentional crime, the defendant must have known, at least in a general sense, that the information was a protected secret and that disclosing it was against duty. Negligent or careless disclosure without this awareness does not satisfy the statute.
A Related but Distinct Charge: Leaking Secrets from Public Interest Reporting
Separate from Article 127, special statutes (e.g., certain provisions concerning public officials' duty of confidentiality under the National Civil Service Act) can create parallel disciplinary liability even where a criminal charge does not proceed. It is common for a single act to trigger both a criminal case and an internal disciplinary process, and the two proceed on different standards of proof and different timelines.
Official Secrets Leak | The Intent Dispute: Did You Know It Was Secret?
Most defense strategies in these cases center on intent, because the act of sharing information is often not seriously disputed — what is disputed is the defendant's state of mind at the time.
General Awareness Is Enough, But It Must Exist
Courts do not require the defendant to have known the precise legal classification of the information; general awareness that it was not meant to be shared is sufficient for intent under Article 127 of the Criminal Act. However, if the defendant genuinely believed the information was already public, or believed sharing it was within the scope of normal duty communication, that belief can negate intent.
Context: Routine Interagency Communication vs. Targeted Disclosure
A disclosure made in what appeared to be a routine, work-related exchange (for example, answering a colleague's question) is treated differently from information deliberately funneled to a person with an outside interest, such as a journalist, business contact, or litigant. The surrounding communication record — messages, call logs, meeting context — often becomes the central evidence.
Why Written Statements During Investigation Matter
Because intent is inferred from circumstantial evidence, early statements given to investigators about why the information was shared can significantly shape how the case is framed later. Statements made without legal advice, under pressure or without full understanding of the elements, are difficult to walk back once memorialized in an investigation record.
Official Secrets Leak | What Actually Counts as a 'Secret Requiring Protection'
Not every piece of internal information is legally a secret for purposes of this crime. This distinction is frequently the deciding factor in these cases.
Substantive Test, Not Formal Classification
Under established case law, information must be substantively confidential — meaning it is not widely known and there is a real interest in keeping it undisclosed — rather than merely labeled as confidential in an internal document management system. A document marked '대외비' (for internal use only) is not automatically a protected secret under Article 127.
Information Already Public or About to Become Public
If the information was already accessible through other lawful channels, or was scheduled for imminent public release (such as a policy announcement about to be made), the defense can argue there was no genuine secret left to protect at the time of disclosure.
Job-Relatedness of How the Secret Was Learned
Even genuinely confidential information does not satisfy this element if the defendant did not learn it through their own official duties — for example, information overheard incidentally in a shared office space with no connection to the defendant's assigned work may not meet the 'learned through duties' requirement.
Official Secrets Leak | How an Official Secrets Leak Case Typically Proceeds
Cases often begin with an internal audit, a whistleblower report, or a complaint from a third party affected by the leak, which is then referred to the police or prosecution.
The accused is typically summoned for questioning as a suspect. Digital forensics on messaging apps, call records, and document access logs are common at this stage, and any statement given here becomes part of the permanent case record.
Depending on the employing agency, an internal disciplinary committee may proceed on a separate timeline from the criminal case, sometimes reaching a decision before the criminal case concludes.
The prosecution decides whether to indict, issue a non-prosecution decision, or in some cases proceed by summary indictment (약식기소) resulting in a fine without a full trial.
If the case goes to trial, both the existence of a protectable secret and the defendant's intent are typically the central contested issues, along with sentencing factors such as the extent of harm caused and any disciplinary consequences already suffered.
Official Secrets Leak | How Fees Are Determined in These Cases
Generally set according to the stage of the case (police investigation only, prosecutorial review, or trial) and the complexity of the factual dispute, particularly whether intent and secrecy classification are heavily contested.
If used, this is typically tied to a defined favorable outcome such as non-prosecution, a reduced charge, or a non-custodial sentence, rather than any guaranteed result, and is agreed upon in advance in the fee agreement.
Because the internal disciplinary process runs separately from the criminal case, representation in disciplinary hearings is often billed as a distinct scope of work if requested.
Costs such as document reproduction, expert opinion requests, or travel for regional proceedings are billed separately from the retainer as actual expenses incurred.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Official Secrets Leak | Self-Check Before Your Consultation
1️⃣ Have You Been Summoned for Questioning?
- Have you received a formal notice to appear as a suspect (not simply a witness)?
- Do you know whether the investigation is being led by the police or directly by the prosecution?
- Have you already given any statement, written or verbal, about why you shared the information?
- Has anyone advised you on your right to remain silent and to have counsel present?
2️⃣ Assessing the Intent Issue
- At the time you shared the information, did you believe it was already public or about to be released?
- Was the disclosure made in what you believed was a routine work exchange, or to someone with an outside interest?
- Can you reconstruct the context (chat logs, emails, meeting notes) around the disclosure?
3️⃣ Assessing the Secrecy and Job-Relatedness Issue
- Was the information formally classified, or only informally treated as sensitive?
- Did you learn the information through your own assigned duties, or incidentally through another channel?
- Is there any argument that the information no longer required protection at the time of disclosure?
4️⃣ Employment and Disciplinary Status
- Has your agency opened a separate internal disciplinary investigation?
- Have you been suspended, reassigned, or otherwise restricted pending the outcome?
- Do you understand how a criminal disposition might affect the disciplinary outcome, and vice versa?
