법무법인 프런티어
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 investigation, 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?
Frequently Asked Questions
Official References
개인정보처리방침
제 1 조 수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법
제 2 조 개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간
제 3 조 개인정보의 제3자 제공
제 4 조 개인정보 처리업무의 위탁
제 5 조 정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법
제 6 조 개인정보의 파기
제 7 조 의견수렴 및 불만처리
제 8 조 개인정보 처리방침의 변경
제 9 조 개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치
제 1 조 (수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법)
① 게시판 글 작성 시 필수 항목에 대한 수집목적은 ‘별도의 구체적 상담을 위하여’이며 수집항목은 ‘이름, 이메일, 연락처’입니다.
② 전항 외에 고객의 서비스 이용 과정이나 요청 사항 처리 과정에서 ‘IP주소, 접속로그, 단말기 및 환경정보, 서비스 이용기록, 쿠키’와 같은 정보들이 자동으로 수집 및 저장될 수 있으며, 이 때의 수집목적은 ‘사용자 홈페이지 이용, 사이트 이용에 대한 문의 민원 등 고객 고충 처리’입니다.
③ 사무소는 ‘홈페이지 고객 문의/고충 처리 시 전화 또는 인터넷을 통한 상담’과 같은 방법으로 개인정보를 수집합니다
제 2 조 (개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간)
관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 보존하여야 하는 의무가 있는 경우가 아닌 한, 정보주체의 개인정보는 원칙적으로 해당 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성될 때까지 보유 및 이용되며, 그 목적이 달성되면 지체 없이 파기됩니다.
제 3 조 (개인정보의 제3자 제공)
사무소는 정보주체의 개인정보를 본 처리방침에서 명시한 목적에 한해서만 처리하며 정보주체의 사전동의가 있는 경우 또는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령의 규정에 의거한 경우에만 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공합니다. 사무소는 현재 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공하지 않고 있습니다.
제 4 조 (개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
사무소는 현재 귀하의 개인정보 보호를 위해 귀하의 개인정보를 직접 취급 관리하고 있습니다. 단, 향후 보다 전문적인 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 제3의 전문기관에 귀하의 정보를 위탁할 필요가 있다고 판단되는 경우, 귀하의 사전 동의 하에 개인정보에 대한 취급을 위탁할 수 있습니다.
제 5 조 (정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법)
① 정보주체는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 사무소에 대해 개인정보의 열람, 정정 및 삭제, 처리정지 요구 등 개인정보 보호 관련 권리를 행사할 수 있습니다.
② 제1항에 따른 권리행사는 정보주체의 법정대리인이나 위임을 받은 사람을 통해서도 할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이 경우에는 개인정보보호법 시행규칙에 따른 위임장을 사무소에 제출하여야 합니다.
③ 사무소는 정보주체의 권리행사에 대하여 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 지체 없이 조치하겠습니다.
제 6 조 (개인정보의 파기)
① 사무소는 원칙적으로 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성된 경우 등 그 개인정보가 불필요하게 되었을 때에는 지체 없이 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
② 사무소가 관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 파기하지 아니하고 보존하여야 하는 경우에는 해당 개인정보 또는 개인정보파일을 다른 개인정보와 분리해서 저장·관리 합니다.
③ 사무소는 파기사유가 발생한 개인정보를 선정하여 개인정보 보호책임자의 승인을 받아 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
④ 사무소는 파기하여야 할 개인정보가 전자적 파일 형태인 경우 복원이 불가능한 방법으로 영구 삭제하며, 이외의 기록물, 인쇄물, 서면, 그 밖의 기록매체인 경우 파쇄 또는 소각합니다.
제 7 조 (의견수렴 및 불만처리)
정보주체는 개인정보 보호 관련 문의, 불만처리, 피해구제 등에 관한 사항을 아래 개인정보 보호책임자 또는 담당부서에 문의하실 수 있습니다. 사무소는 정보주체의 문의에 대하여 신속하고 충분한 답변을 드릴 것입니다.
개인정보 보호 책임자 : 변호사
연락처 : 02.
제 8 조 (개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
사무소의 개인정보 처리방침은 관련 법령, 지침 및 사무소 내부규정에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 개인정보 처리방침이 변경되는 경우 관련 법령이 정하는 방법에 따라 공개합니다.
제 9 조 (개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치)
사무소는 개인정보의 안전성 확보를 위해 다음과 같은 조치를 취하고 있습니다.
관리적 조치 : 내부관리계획의 수립 및 시행, 구성원에 대한 정기적인 개인정보 보호교육 등
기술적 조치 : 개인정보처리시스템 등의 접근권한 관리, 접근통제시스템 설치, 고유식별정보 등의 암호화, 보안프로그램의 설치 등
물리적 조치 : 전산실, 자료보관실 등 개인정보 보관장소에 대한 접근통제