Supreme Court Confirms Innocence of Former National Intelligence Service Deputy Director Seo Cheon-ho in 'Yu Woo-sung Trial Closed-Door Defector Testimony Leak' Case

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Former National Intelligence Service (NIS) officials who were charged with leaking the confidential testimony of a defector that emerged during the trial of Yoo Woo-sung, a victim of the 'Seoul City Public Official Spy Fabrication Case,' have been acquitted with the verdict finalized.

On the 28th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) upheld the lower court's acquittal of former NIS Deputy Director Seo Cheon-ho, former Director of the Counterintelligence Investigation Bureau Lee Tae-hee, and former spokesperson Ha Kyung-jun, who were charged with violating the National Intelligence Service Employees Act.

The court stated, "Regarding the charges against the defendants, there is no proof of the crime, and the original judgment of acquittal did not violate the principles of logic and experience, nor did it exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence or misinterpret the legal principles concerning 'secrets learned in the course of duty' under Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the National Intelligence Service Employees Act."

Furthermore, concerning defendants who did not appeal the first trial verdict but against whom only the prosecution appealed, the court noted, "Considering the provisions of Article 364-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the legislative purpose and intent to ensure fairness among co-defendants, the term 'co-defendant who appealed' as stipulated in the article includes not only co-defendants who personally appealed but also those against whom only the prosecution appealed in the first trial."

It concluded, "Therefore, it was lawful for the appellate court to annul the portion concerning the defendant against whom only the prosecution appealed, on the grounds that the reasons for annulment were common with those of the other defendants."

Article 364-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Annulment for Co-defendants) states, 'When annulling a judgment for the defendant, if the reason for annulment is common to a co-defendant who appealed, the judgment shall also be annulled for that co-defendant.'

The 'Seoul City Public Official Spy Fabrication Case' involved Yoo, a defector working as a contract public official for Seoul City, who was charged with violating the National Security Act by allegedly passing information about domestic defectors to North Korea's State Security Department. During the 2014 trial, it was revealed that the NIS had fabricated evidence.

The prosecution believed that when criticism of the NIS's evidence fabrication intensified, former Deputy Director Seo and others leaked the confidential testimony of defector A, which emerged during Yoo's trial, and a petition submitted by A to the court, to the media to reverse the public mood. It was understood that A's confidential testimony was leaked to North Korea, and the NIS officials conspired to make it appear as if Yoo had passed it to North Korea.

In the first trial, the court found them guilty, sentencing former Deputy Director Seo to one year in prison, and former Director Lee and former spokesperson Ha to ten months in prison with two years of probation each.

However, the appellate court acquitted all, stating that testimonies from related parties claiming that 'former Deputy Director Seo ordered the leak' lacked evidentiary value, and that A's testimony and petition could not be considered 'secrets' under the National Intelligence Service Employees Act.

The testimonies from related parties that 'former Deputy Director Seo ordered the leak' were hearsay and thus lacked evidentiary value, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove Seo's directive.

The court also ruled that the confidential court testimonies criticized by the prosecution could not be regarded as 'secrets learned in the course of duty' under Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the National Intelligence Service Employees Act.

For a fact to be recognized as a 'secret' under the provision, it must be an undisclosed fact that is substantially worthy of protection as a secret. The Supreme Court's previous stance was that the purpose of punishing violations of the secrecy obligation under Article 17, Paragraph 1 is not to protect the secret itself but to safeguard the state's functions threatened by the disclosure of secrets.

The court pointed out, "A's confidential court testimony and related materials are unlikely to harm the state's functions even if leaked, and the contents of A's petition are also unlikely to infringe upon national legal interests if disclosed."

It added, "Moreover, the concern that the leak of confidential testimony would undermine public trust in the trial had already arisen at the initial leak, and it is difficult to consider that trust in the trial is a legal interest protected by the secrecy obligation of NIS employees. Therefore, the confidential court testimonies in this case do not fall under 'secrets learned in the course of duty' as defined in Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the National Intelligence Service Employees Act," overturning the first trial's judgment.

The Supreme Court also found no issue with the appellate court's judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.