Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Special-relationship concurrence and the reach of a military seizure warrant
Supreme Court, May 15, 2025, 2024Do16239 (judgment)
Case name: 부패방지및국민권익위원회의설치와운영에관한법률위반·농지법위반·공무상비밀누설[공무원이 업무처리 중 알게 된 택지 개발 정보를 이용하여 지인들로 하여금 토지를 취득하게 하는 등의 행위로 기소된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a public official used secret information learned in handling official business to have associates acquire land, does only the offence under Article 86(1) of the former Act on Corruption Prevention and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and not also the offence of disclosing official secrets under Article 127 of the Criminal Act, arise, and may a seizure warrant issued by a military judge reach property held by persons who are not servicemen or civilian employees?
Holding
Yes on both points. The special relationship in concurrence of offences means one offence's elements contain all the elements of another plus something more, and here the corruption offence adds the acquisition of property or a proprietary benefit for oneself or a third party to the elements of the official-secrets offence, with no real difference in the protected legal interest; so only the offence under Article 86(1) of the former Act arises. As to seizure, Articles 258 and 146(1) of the Military Court Act limit the target to evidence or items liable to forfeiture that can be held related to the case, so property held by persons outside the personal jurisdiction under Article 2 may still be seized, unless the warrant itself restricts it, where its connection with the alleged crime and the need to seize it are established.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
즉, 위 양 죄는 법조경합의 한 형태인 특별관계에 있으므로, 공직자가 업무처리 중 알게 된 비밀을 이용하여 재물 또는 재산상 이익을 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득하게 한 경우에는 구 부패방지권익위법 제86조 제1항 위반죄만이 성립하고, 별도로 형법상 공무상비밀누설죄가 성립하지 않는다고 할 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
That is, the above two offenses stand in a special relationship, which is a form of concurrence of applicable provisions; accordingly, where a public official, by using a secret learned in the course of handling his or her duties, acquires property or a pecuniary benefit, or causes a third party to acquire the same, only the offense of violating Article 86(1) of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act is established, and the crime of divulging official secrets under the Criminal Act is not separately established.
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
법조경합의 한 형태인 특별관계란 어느 구성요건이 다른 구성요건의 모든 요소를 포함하는 외에 다른 요소를 구비하여야 성립하는 경우로서
Unofficial English translation
A special relationship, which is a form of concurrence of applicable provisions, refers to a case where one constituent element is established only where, in addition to including all elements of another constituent element, it further possesses other elements,
Factors
- 전자의 죄는 후자의 죄의 구성요건을 충족하는 외에 추가로 ‘재물 또는 재산상 이익을 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득’하게 하여야 성립하고
- 위 양 죄를 별죄로 보아야 할 만큼 그 보호법익에 차이가 있다고 보기도 어렵다
- 실질적으로 1죄인가 또는 수죄인가는 구성요건적 평가와 보호법익의 측면에서 고찰하여 판단하여야 한다
- 피의자 이외의 자가 소유·소지·보관하는 물건도 필요성이 있는 한 압수의 대상이 될 수 있다
- 신분적 재판권에 관하여 군사법원법 제2조가 정한 군인, 군무원 등이 아닌 사람이 소유·소지·보관하고 있는 물건도
Unofficial English translation
• the former offense is established only where, in addition to satisfying the constituent elements of the latter offense, it further causes 'the acquisition of property or a pecuniary benefit, or causes a third party to acquire the same,' and
• it is also difficult to find that there is such a difference in the protected legal interests of the above two offenses as to warrant treating them as separate offenses
• whether there is substantively one offense or multiple offenses must be determined by examining the matter from the perspectives of the element-based evaluation and the protected legal interests
• articles owned, possessed, or kept by a person other than the suspect may also become objects of seizure insofar as there is a necessity
• an article owned, possessed, or kept by a person who is not a member of the military, a military employee, or the like as provided in Article 2 of the Military Court Act with respect to personal jurisdiction, also
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2003. 4. 8. 선고 2002도6033 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6033 decided April 8, 2003
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2003. 4. 8. 선고 2002도6033 판결(공2003상, 1127), 대법원 2004. 1. 15. 선고 2001도1429 판결(공2004상, 368)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the same conduct also falls under Article 14(1) and Article 27(1) of the current Act on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest for Public Officials, is the earlier special-offence-only analysis unchanged?
A later decision on the scope of seizure under a military court warrant, or an amendment to Article 2 or Article 258 of the Military Court Act, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 14 or Article 27 of the Act on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest for Public Officials, which the provisions referred to name as the current counterparts.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
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 “If the same conduct also falls under Article 14(1) and Article 27(1) of the current Act on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest for Public Officials, is the earlier special-offence-only analysis unchanged?” vs Independent “What degree of connection to the alleged offense is sufficient to justify seizure of property held by a civilian?”
The primary asks whether the analysis survives the current conflict-of-interest statute, while the independent reading asks how strong the connection to the alleged offence must be to seize civilian-held property.
즉, 위 양 죄는 법조경합의 한 형태인 특별관계에 있으므로, 공직자가 업무처리 중 알게 된 비밀을 이용하여 재물 또는 재산상 이익을 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득하게 한 경우에는 구 부패방지권익위법 제86조 제1항 위반죄만이 성립하고, 별도로 형법상 공무상비밀누설죄가 성립하지 않는다고 할 것이다.Raw 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 High Court, in its judgment of 8 October 2024 (2024No228), found Defendant not guilty of violating the former Farmland Act and of violating the former Anti-Corruption Act in relation to the 1,487 square metre parcel at O-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, holding that the charges were not proved. On the remaining charges it found Defendant guilty and forfeited three parcels taken from Defendant and Co-participants 1 to 4, and the warrant issued by the military judge and the exclusionary rule for unlawfully obtained evidence were among the matters on which the court below's judgment was later found free of error.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the court below had not misapplied the law on the establishment of the offences under Article 7-2 of the former Anti-Corruption Act and Article 6 of the former Farmland Act, nor on concurrence of offences, and that the acquittals stood. It also held that the court below had not misunderstood the law on a seizure warrant issued by a military judge, and that the convictions, the treatment of joint principal offenders and the forfeiture were free of error, so all appeals by the prosecution, Defendant and the Co-participants were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the official's conduct does not meet the further element of acquiring property or a proprietary benefit for oneself or a third party, so that only the general offence could arise.
- A seizure warrant that expressly restricts its own scope, since the Court's rule applies unless the warrant limits the seizure.
- Property with no established connection to the alleged crime, or whose seizure has no necessity, since both are required for it to be a target of seizure under the Military Court Act.
Record verification notes
Set each charge against the elements of Article 7-2 and Article 6 of the former statutes before relying on the concurrence rule, since the acquittals here rested on proof, not on concurrence. Then read the text of the seizure warrant itself for any express limit, and gather what shows the connection of each seized parcel to the alleged crime and the need to seize it, as the Court required both.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 법조경합의 한 형태인 특별관계의 의미 및 법조경합인지 실질적 수죄인지 판단하는 기준 / 공직자가 업무처리 중 알게 된 비밀을 이용하여 재물 또는 재산상 이익을 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득하게 한 경우, 구 부패방지 및 국민권익위원회의 설치와 운영에 관한 법률 제86조 제1항 위반죄만 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 별도로 형법상 공무상비밀누설죄가 성립하는지 여부(소극) [2] 군사법원법상 압수의 대상 / 신분적 재판권에 관하여 군사법원법 제2조가 정한 군인, 군무원 등이 아닌 사람이 소유·소지·보관하고 있는 물건도 해당 압수·수색영장의 범죄 혐의사실과의 관련성과 압수할 필요성이 인정되는 경우에는 군사법원법상 압수의 대상이 될 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of 'special relationship,' a form of concurrence of applicable provisions, and the criteria for determining whether a case involves concurrence of applicable provisions or a substantive plurality of offenses / Whether, where a public official, by using a secret learned in the course of handling his or her duties, acquires property or a pecuniary benefit, or causes a third party to acquire the same, only the offense of violating Article 86(1) of the former Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission is established (affirmative), and whether the crime of divulging official secrets under the Criminal Act is separately established (negative) [2] Objects of seizure under the Military Court Act / Whether an article owned, possessed, or kept by a person who is not a member of the military, a military employee, or the like as provided in Article 2 of the Military Court Act with respect to personal jurisdiction may also become an object of seizure under the Military Court Act where its relevance to the suspected offense stated in the search and seizure warrant and the necessity of seizure are recognized (in principle, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 법조경합의 한 형태인 특별관계란 어느 구성요건이 다른 구성요건의 모든 요소를 포함하는 외에 다른 요소를 구비하여야 성립하는 경우로서, 특별관계에 있어서 특별법의 구성요건을 충족하는 행위는 일반법의 구성요건을 충족하지만 반대로 일반법의 구성요건을 충족하는 행위는 특별법의 구성요건을 충족하지 못한다. 법조경합은 1개의 행위가 외관상 수 개의 죄의 구성요건에 해당하는 것처럼 보이나 실질적으로 1죄만을 구성하는 경우를 말하며, 실질적으로 1죄인가 또는 수죄인가는 구성요건적 평가와 보호법익의 측면에서 고찰하여 판단하여야 한다. 구 부패방지 및 국민권익위원회의 설치와 운영에 관한 법률(2021. 5. 18. 법률 제18191호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 부패방지권익위법’이라고 한다) 제7조의2는 ‘공직자는 업무처리 중 알게 된 비밀을 이용하여 재물 또는 재산상의 이익을 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득하게 하여서는 아니 된다.’고 규정하고 있고, 같은 법 제86조 제1항은 ‘공직자가 제7조의2를 위반한 때에는 7년 이하의 징역 또는 7,000만 원 이하의 벌금에 처한다.’고 규정하고 있다. 한편 형법 제127조는 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 자가 법령에 의한 직무상 비밀을 누설한 때에는 2년 이하의 징역이나 금고 또는 5년 이하의 자격정지에 처한다.’고 규정하고 있다. 위 양 죄를 비교하면, 전자의 죄는 후자의 죄의 구성요건을 충족하는 외에 추가로 ‘재물 또는 재산상 이익을 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득’하게 하여야 성립하고, 위 양 죄를 별죄로 보아야 할 만큼 그 보호법익에 차이가 있다고 보기도 어렵다. 즉, 위 양 죄는 법조경합의 한 형태인 특별관계에 있으므로, 공직자가 업무처리 중 알게 된 비밀을 이용하여 재물 또는 재산상 이익을 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득하게 한 경우에는 구 부패방지권익위법 제86조 제1항 위반죄만이 성립하고, 별도로 형법상 공무상비밀누설죄가 성립하지 않는다고 할 것이다. [2] 군사법원법 제258조, 제146조 제1항은 압수의 대상을 ‘해당 사건과 관계가 있다고 인정할 수 있는 것에 한정하여 증거물 또는 몰수될 것으로 생각되는 물건’이라고 정하고 있고, 피의자 이외의 자가 소유·소지·보관하는 물건도 필요성이 있는 한 압수의 대상이 될 수 있다. 따라서 압수·수색영장에서 특별히 제한하지 않는 이상 신분적 재판권에 관하여 군사법원법 제2조가 정한 군인, 군무원 등이 아닌 사람이 소유·소지·보관하고 있는 물건도 해당 압수·수색영장의 범죄 혐의사실과의 관련성과 압수할 필요성이 인정되는 경우에는 군사법원법상 압수의 대상이 될 수 있다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제37조, 제127조, 구 부패방지 및 국민권익위원회의 설치와 운영에 관한 법률(2021. 5. 18. 법률 제18191호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제7조의2(현행 공직자의 이해충돌 방지법 제14조 제1항 참조), 제86조 제1항(현행 공직자의 이해충돌 방지법 제27조 제1항 참조) [2] 군사법원법 제2조, 제146조 제1항, 제258조, 제359조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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