바카라 카지노

①We represented a senior judge Cho Ui Yeon

②Case background: Judges, Shin Gwang Ryul, Cho Ui Yeon and Sung Chang Ho were alleged of the disclosure of secrets obtained in the course of conducing their duties by conspiring to collect information on warrant trials, including statements regarding irregularities of judges, from warrant motions or investigation records attached thereto from May 3, 2016 to September 9, 2016 when they served as judge in charge of the issuance of warrants at Seoul Central District Court and to compile the information and send nine files and a copy of an investigation report to Lim Jong Heon who was the then senior manager of the Court Administration Office on ten occasions.

①The court found that Shin Gwang Ryul, senior criminal judge of the same court delivered part of the reports allegedly made by the defendants to the manager of the Court Administration Office.

②The reports made by Cho Ui Yeon and Sung Chang Ho to the senior criminal judge were legitimate because they customarily reported the senior criminal judge of the handling results of warrants regarding important cases as judges in charge of the issuance of warrants. The senor criminal judge’s 바카라 카지노 of reporting to the Court Administration Office, which is an upper judicial administration organization of the courts, of irregularities committed by judges was legitimate from the perspective of judicial administration. It appears that the judges were not aware of the circumstance that the senior criminal judge made reports to the officials of the Court Administration Office. The judges’ reports to the senior criminal judge and the senior criminal judge’s reports to the manager of the Court Administration Officer were two separate acts conducted to perform their respective duties with different objectives according to the two separate hierarchies. Thus, it is hard for the court to find that the defendants conspired to commit the alleged criminal 바카라 카지노 with intention being shared among them to divulge investigation information that they had obtained through trials.

③Cho Ui Yeon and Sung Chang Ho dealt with trials in compliance with practical principles and customs, and it is hard to see that there was any illegality or unreasonableness in the procedures and decisions taken and made by them.

In the early stages of the trial, as the prosecutor made a request for a change of the complaint twice, we requested the prosecutor to specifically identity the factual background of prosecution on the basis that the prosecutor violated the principle of a single complaint and did not specify the factual ground of prosecution.

As the prosecutor requested the court to recognize admissibility of email exhibits, which he had seized from the defendants but he had not indicated in the list of investigation records, as additional evidence, we argued that he had illegally collected evidence in violation of Article 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure 바카라 카지노. The prosecutor eventually withdrew the request. Reversely, we effectively utilized the email, which served as basis for the acquittal decision.

We argued that the reports made by the judges in charge of the issuance of warrants were a separate 바카라 카지노 of performing their duties from the reports of the senor criminal judge to the Court Administration Office. The judges made the reports in accordance with objectives and hierarchy that were different from those followed by the senior criminal judge. As such, the judges’ reports were legitimate and did not constitute “leakage” of confidential information, and the contents of the reports did not constitute “confidential information” subject to protection because they had been already known by and available to the Court Administration Office through the media and prosecution related parties. We further asserted that the reports made from Seoul Central District Court to the Court Administration Office did not cause hinderance in exercising the investigation function which was the subject to be protected by punishing the crime of leakage of official secrets. We successfully helped the client be found innocent on the ground that the reports made by the judges were a report made legitimately under their official authority.

The decision has an implication in that it is the decision on the first case in which the judges were prosecuted for a crime of leakage of official secrets in relation to the reports internally made in order of a judge, the criminal senior judge and the manager of the Court Administration Office.

In regard to internal reports and the constitution of a crime of leakage of official secrets, the court ruled that, given the circumstances in which the prosecution actively briefed the media on investigation information or informed the Court Administration Office of investigation status in detail, the senior criminal judge of Seoul Central District Court’s 바카라 카지노 of receiving and acquiring investigation information on irregularities of judges from the judges exclusively dealing with warrants and making reports of the investigation information to the Court Administration Court constituted making internal reports necessary to perform duties, the 바카라 카지노 did not create any hinderance in performing the functions of the investigation authority and dealing with trials, and therefore, it would be reasonable to find that investigation information subject to this case did not constitute “official secrets” or the investigation information had been disclosed to the extent that could be admissible as internal reports necessary to perform judicial administration.