Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Diplomatic secrets under Article 113(1) of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2023Do18308 (judgment)
Case name: 공무상비밀누설·외교상기밀누설·외교상기밀탐지·외교상기밀수집
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does 'diplomatic secret' mean under Article 113(1) of the Criminal Act, and what must information satisfy to count as one?
Holding
A diplomatic secret is any information or material that the state must preserve and hold in its relationship with foreign countries, where keeping it secret or unconfirmed from them serves the interests of the Republic of Korea in foreign policy. It must not fall within matters already widely known abroad through media or information networks whose secrecy cannot be said to serve such interests, and its disclosure must risk endangering the Republic of Korea's external safety and status, so that it has substantial value worth protecting as a secret. On these elements the Supreme Court found no misreading of the law below and dismissed the appeals of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
형법 제113조 제1항에서 말하는 외교상 기밀이란, 외국과의 관계에서 국가가 보전하여 간직해야 할 기밀로서 외교정책상 외국에 대하여 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 대한민국의 이익이 되는 모든 정보자료를 말하는 것으로서, ‘언론매체나 정보통신망 등을 통해 외국에 이미 널리 알려져 있는 사항으로서 이를 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 외교정책상의 이익이 된다고 할 수 없는 것’에 속하지 아니한 것이어야 하고
Unofficial English translation
The 'diplomatic secrets' referred to in Article 113 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act means all information and materials that constitute secrets which the State must preserve and keep in its relations with foreign countries, and as to which it is in the interest of the Republic of Korea that they be kept secret from, or unconfirmed by, foreign countries in terms of foreign policy, and it must not fall under 'a matter already widely known abroad through the media or information and communication networks, etc., as to which it cannot be said to be in the interest of foreign policy that it be kept secret or unconfirmed', and
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘언론매체나 정보통신망 등을 통해 외국에 이미 널리 알려져 있는 사항으로서 이를 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 외교정책상의 이익이 된다고 할 수 없는 것’에 속하지 아니한 것이어야 하고
Unofficial English translation
it must not fall under 'a matter already widely known abroad through the media or information and communication networks, etc., as to which it cannot be said to be in the interest of foreign policy that it be kept secret or unconfirmed', and
Factors
- 외국과의 관계에서 국가가 보전하여 간직해야 할 기밀로서
- 외교정책상 외국에 대하여 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 대한민국의 이익이 되는 모든 정보자료를
- ‘언론매체나 정보통신망 등을 통해 외국에 이미 널리 알려져 있는 사항으로서 이를 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 외교정책상의 이익이 된다고 할 수 없는 것’에 속하지 아니한 것이어야
- 그 내용이 누설되는 경우 대한민국의 대외적 안전과 지위에 위험을 초래할 우려가 있어
- 기밀로서 보호할 실질가치를 갖춘 것이어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• constitutes secrets which the State must preserve and keep in its relations with foreign countries, and
• all information and materials as to which it is in the interest of the Republic of Korea that they be kept secret from, or unconfirmed by, foreign countries in terms of foreign policy
• must not fall under 'a matter already widely known abroad through the media or information and communication networks, etc., as to which it cannot be said to be in the interest of foreign policy that it be kept secret or unconfirmed'
• where its contents are disclosed, there is a risk of causing danger to the external security and standing of the Republic of Korea, and
• it must possess substantial value warranting protection as a secret
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1995. 12. 5. 선고 94도2379 판결(공1996상, 311)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 94Do2379 decided December 5, 1995 (Gong 1996 Sang, 311)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1995. 12. 5. 선고 94도2379 판결(공1996상, 311)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does a level-3 classification by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by itself, show that disclosure risks endangering the Republic of Korea's external safety and status?
A later decision on how much weight a ministry classification carries in the risk element, or an amendment to Article 113(1) of the Criminal Act, would call for this entry to be read again. New material on how far the summit discussion was published abroad would also require it.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does a level-3 classification by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by itself, show that disclosure risks endangering the Republic of Korea's external safety and status?” vs Independent “How much foreign dissemination is sufficient to classify information as already widely known abroad?”
The primary reading asks whether a level-3 classification alone establishes disclosure risk, while the independent reading asks how much foreign dissemination makes information widely known.
형법 제113조 제1항에서 말하는 외교상 기밀이란, 외국과의 관계에서 국가가 보전하여 간직해야 할 기밀로서 외교정책상 외국에 대하여 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 대한민국의 이익이 되는 모든 정보자료를 말하는 것으로서, ‘언론매체나 정보통신망 등을 통해 외국에 이미 널리 알려져 있는 사항으로서 이를 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 외교정책상의 이익이 된다고 할 수 없는 것’에 속하지 아니한 것이어야 하고Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 17 November 2023 (2022No2376), sitting on appeal, left in place the first-instance judgment convicting the defendants. It held, for the reasons set out in that judgment, that the contents of the discussions between the Presidents of the Republic of Korea and the United States in connection with the US President's visit to Korea, which were classified as a level-3 secret by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were a diplomatic secret, and so upheld the conviction on the charges.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. For Defendant 1, it held that the court below had not violated the rules on the limits of free evaluation or misread the law on the offence of disclosing official secrets. For Defendant 2, applying the stated test and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the conclusion that the discussions were a diplomatic secret was right, with no failure to examine what was needed and no misreading of the law on the offences of diplomatic secret disclosure, detection and collection, on justifiable acts or on immunity privilege.
Distinguishing conditions
- Information already widely known abroad through media or information networks, where keeping it secret or unconfirmed cannot be said to serve diplomatic policy interests.
- Information whose disclosure carries no risk of danger to the Republic of Korea's external safety and status, so that it has no substantial value worth protecting as a secret.
- A charge concerning official secrets other than a diplomatic secret under Article 113(1), since the test restated here is the test for a diplomatic secret.
Record verification notes
Set the file against each element in turn: whether the material is one the state must hold in the foreign relationship, whether it is already widely known abroad, and whether its disclosure risks danger to Korea's external safety and status. The reasons record that the discussion contents, classified as a level-3 secret by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were held to be a diplomatic secret, but they do not show whether the classification alone was the basis, so gather the evidence of danger and of the value of secrecy as such. The appeal also raised justifiable acts and immunity privilege, so confirm how the file stands on those grounds before relying on this entry elsewhere.
From the official text
Points at issue
형법 제113조 제1항 외교상기밀누설죄에서 말하는 ‘외교상 기밀’의 의미 및 외교상 기밀에 해당하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
Meaning of 'diplomatic secrets' as used in the offense of disclosure of diplomatic secrets under Article 113 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Act, and the requirements for constituting diplomatic secrets
Summary of the holding
형법 제113조 제1항에서 말하는 외교상 기밀이란, 외국과의 관계에서 국가가 보전하여 간직해야 할 기밀로서 외교정책상 외국에 대하여 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 대한민국의 이익이 되는 모든 정보자료를 말하는 것으로서, ‘언론매체나 정보통신망 등을 통해 외국에 이미 널리 알려져 있는 사항으로서 이를 비밀로 하거나 확인되지 아니함이 외교정책상의 이익이 된다고 할 수 없는 것’에 속하지 아니한 것이어야 하고, 또 그 내용이 누설되는 경우 대한민국의 대외적 안전과 지위에 위험을 초래할 우려가 있어 기밀로서 보호할 실질가치를 갖춘 것이어야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
형법 제113조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger