I'm not sure I understand the wrangling here at all.
a) If the information was not disclosed, there is no offence. No smoke without fire, so it would appear that some information was disclosed.
b) If that information was protectively marked, and the giver was not authorised to disclose it (it does not matter if the recipient was authorised to receive the info) then an offence has been committed. Eg the electronics tech who works on crypto systems may be cleared to the same level as say a RAF OpO, but anyone giving him a SECRET RAF doc is in deep doodoo. As is the tech if he does nothing.
c) If the information was not protectively marked, but was militarily significant information obtained in the course of his duties, an administrative offence may have been committed.
If the facts of the case follow para b), then this soldier is in a world of hurt. It is not up to him, nor even CDS to decide what should or should not be disclosed. In the case of national security (ie what the protective markings are designed to protect), it is very clear cut.
Factors such as how large or small the numbers are, the background of the recipient, the extent of the damage done with the information, the intent of the soldier by disclosing such, the method of delivery (pillow talk vs email vs verbal), all of these are merely factors in determining sentence, not guilt.
As a Lt Col (at 48 and an ex-ranker, I would think he is a QM), this soldier can be relied upon to have known the law, and the ramifications of breaking it.
I fail to understand why some here are "sympathising". All here who serve or have served, are subject to the exact same laws and limitations. Adherence to the OSA in particular, is a basic expectation of any member of the Armed Forces, and there are NO exceptions.