except that the execution of each of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person retired from G while serving in the E team under the jurisdiction of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the "National Intelligence Service") from B to C.

[Basic Facts] H through I J (hereinafter referred to as the "J") operated the NIS based on the recognition that the success of the President is national security, which is an institution assisting and supporting the President's smooth performance of state affairs, and that the presidential performance of state affairs is immediately national security. ① The Government's position was advocated with the major issues of state affairs, and the opposition was actively responding to the past and the past, and repeatedly directed the President's achievements, performance, etc. to widely publicize the president's achievements, performance, etc. ② In response to the government policy or repeatedly opposing the government policy or repeatedly opposing the government policy, civic groups, labor groups, etc. were the same as those of the North Korea forces, and the direction-making power and direction-making power was not able to expand the NP team's participation in the election as above, and the direction-making power and direction-making power were not able to be actively developed in connection with the election of all national affairs issues, and the direction-making power and direction-making power of the NP Team's participation in the election.

According to the direction of "K, L, and M's above political intervention, election campaign, and PP Team employees", the staff of the E group N Team from February 14, 2009 to December 2, 2012, under the direction system leading from K-L-M - Planning officer to the team leader, etc., "major issues and response issues" were sent to outside assistants, such as the team leader, etc. of the "P Team connected with the E group N Team" in the course of performing the duties as above, and the guidelines for maintaining security, such as the use of the budget, measures to cope with the investigation agency's cyber activities were sent to the outside assistants, and the staff of the E group N Team instruct the implementation of cyber activities in the same way as the cyber activities of the employees of the E group N Team in connection with the above outside assistants, and the preparation of comments and comments according to the agenda items and the upper and upper characters using Qk et al., and the cyber activities were organized as follows.

On August 29, 2012, R. 1, an external assistant of the E- Group, connected to the 'S' site, 'NT', and the President, 'U', as the title of the 'Y', sent up to 10 billion won to the 'NE', 'NE' to the effect that 3 employees of the E-group NE including Z have achieved restoration of X at the time of his/her employment in the W market and construction of Y bridges, 'P', 'P' by using 'NE' as 4 offlines, and expressed 'P' opinions or dissenting opinions on the 'PE' of the 100,000 won candidate', 'NENE' to the 200,000 won candidate', 'NE' to the 10,000,000 won candidate' or 'NE' to the 5,000,000 won candidate'.

The truth of AI was collected and applied only to .. The AI truth? ..) comments to the effect that the candidate for the presidential election of the AI Group is opposed respectively or at the same time, and comments to support or oppose a specific political party or candidate, or to oppose or oppose a specific political party or candidate, or to support, cite, oppose, or slander a specific political party or politician, etc. K, L, and M were tweeted with 2,027 notice at the Internet site, 1,20 times, 28, 926, 926, 93, 93, 1, 1,03, 203, 30, 40, 36, 40, 200, 1, 206, 36, 30, 40, 20, 30, 36, 40, 30, 36, 15, 36, 36, 4, 1, and 5, etc. of this case.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act;

From October 12, 201 to December 19, 2012, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant was an act irrelevant to the NIS’s duties according to the direction of K, etc., which was carried out through the command system as above, and, at the time of Q, posted a letter on the election of the President, the Government, and female or passport reporters, or on the opposition and slandering them, or on the opposition and slandering them, or on the AE Election conducted by the AJ, in connection with the AE Election, by supporting women and passport candidates, or in opposition against them. However, if a title of the Defendant posted tweet, one of them shared Q accounts created with each of the team members of the F Team to which the Defendant belongs, by posting tweet or tweet by tweet or by itself, other team members.

On October 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by using QAK, posted the title "(s)" case: (b) on the nine-day inspection by the National Assembly Administration, at the same time, on the election campaign by a public official of QAK; (c) on the 1st day from around 17 to December 19, 2012, the Defendant used the position of the public official in QAK; (d) posted the title "N" (e) on the tweet that the public official of the Republic of Korea, who was a representative attorney-at-law, was engaged in the election campaign; (e) by using QAK's position; (e) by using QAK's 13,64 items; (e) [Attachment 3] the election campaign for which the public official of the Republic of Korea was named as a representative attorney-at-law; and (e) up to the 361st day of election campaign; (e) the part related to the election campaign, such as the withdrawal of the political officers and election campaign.

2. A perjury;

At around 14:00 on March 17, 2014, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath in the Seoul Central District Court No. 502, the Seoul Central District Court No. 502, the Seoul Seocho Central District Court No. 507, and the Seoul High Court No. 2013, the National Intelligence Service Act No. 577 and the Public Official Election Act.

In fact, the Defendant, through the direction system leading to K, L, M, planning, team leader, etc., carried out cyber activities to support, cite, or oppose or slander the President, government, women, or passport politics at the time, and during that process, shared QU information with team members belonging to AO team, posted or tweet the above Tweet to the QU account with the so-called "PU No. 1" fixed at the end of the week. Furthermore, on April 25, 2012, from around 2012 to December 5, 2012, the Defendant kept some of the above "Tweet No. 200" issues, "No. 25," "No. 425," and "No. 2, "No. 425," and "No. 42," "No. 1, 2000," and "No. 2,0000, No.

Accordingly, the Defendant was informed of the issues and arguments in the process of the examination of the witness, ① through the process of the examination of the witness, and the Defendant was informed of the issues and arguments mainly in the process of the examination of the witness, and there was no delivery of the issues and arguments related to the harm of the four major lecture projects, the Korea-U.S. FTA, welfare populism, etc., and ② the above 425 debate.tt file and the “stet file” as if they were not memoryd.t file.t file.

At around 15:00 on June 2, 2014, the Defendant continued to be present as a witness of the instant case at the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 502). After having been present as a witness of the instant case, Q activities 10 issues were mainly verbally delivered and received e-mail, and Q-related activities were carried out by North Korea. ② The fact that the Defendant prepared a file of the above 425 paper 425 paper .txt and Q-t file is not memory, and ③ The Defendant made a false statement as if he did not share information on the team and Q account with the members of the NIS EO team and did not jointly use Q account.

In this respect, the defendant made a false statement against his memory two times and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement Nos. 2 through 4 (Change) of the accused, part of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution 6th interrogation protocol of the accused; 1. Statements No. 1. AS, AF, AT, M, AU, AV, AX, Z, AY, Z, BA, or B among the copies of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution 3rd interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Entry of each part of the prosecutor's statement made to AU and BC in each prosecutor's office;

1. The head of the complaint, business manual (Evidence Records 148, 539 pages), list of election language (Evidence Records 152, 543 pages), list of articles (Evidence Records 152, 543 pages), list of articles on September 11, 2012 (BD, B. BG-BH, BI, BK - BL), list of election language tweet (AF, 1,321 case), Scur. tweet output, e-mail data output, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No2820, Seoul High Court Decision 2015Do2625, Notice Notice to AM 2015No198, QM 320, e-mail list of staff members affiliated with AM 360, 200, e-mail list of accounts (Evidences) and 360, e-mail list of accounts related to Q208.

1. Each investigation report (report related to Q account and Twelgle managed by the NIS E group among the criminal facts related to the K former KJ, and the discovery and attachment of reference materials related to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act among criminal facts A, and the verification of the period of service A and the retirement date, and the further analysis of accompanying files of suspect A Q account (AR))

1. A copy of each investigation report [the analysis of e-mail attachment files (2013.10,15.10.10.15.) 'A' staff member of the NIS, the verification of the e-mail attachment file, the analysis of the 'BU' service of the NIS staff A, the confirmation of whether the e-mail attachment is made or not, the verification of whether the 'BU' service is made by the NIS staff member A, and the Q Team staff's management account number, and the compilation of the contents of the 'A' staff member of the NIS, the 'A' staff member of the NIS member of the NIS, 1425 M.t.xt' analysis];

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Some statements made to the accused in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution two to five times, six and seven times;

1. Each part of the protocol of examination of suspect suspect concerning BV and B by the prosecution;

1. Some of the statements written by each prosecutor's office concerning BV, B, X, and Y are written;

1. A copy of each protocol of examination of the witness ( March 17, 2014, June 2, 2014) against A;

1. A copy of the indictment, including the Ministry of Justice No. 2017-type No. 93479, three copies of the report on the progress of the trial to be submitted by the NIS, copies of the list of additional materials for judicial interference, and copies of additional materials for judicial interference (documents related to the investigation and response of working staff members related to Q pending issues, the examination of witness A, and the cross-examination of the A budget)

1. The application of statutes to each copy of the investigation report (the organized crime of the NIS related to the instant case, including the opening of the NIS in 2013 requires additional investigation into the part concerning force of false statements and force of perjury and the perjury of the suspect A)

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 18(1), 9(2)2, and 4(a) of the former National Intelligence Service Act (amended by Act No. 12266, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) (Article 18(1), 9(2)2, and 4(a) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014; hereinafter the same) (Article 255(3)2, and 85(1) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Article 152(1)4 of the Criminal Act);

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Crimes of Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and Crimes of Violation of the Public Official Election Act, and Punishment on Crimes of Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act with heavier punishment)

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 153 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (i.e., perjury since it has been white)

1. Article 18 (3) and Article 18 (1) 3 of the former Public Official Election Act (Article 18 (1) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 18 (1) 5 of the same Act (Article 18 (5) concerning the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act and the punishment for perjury

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

(a) First share: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years and suspension of qualifications for not more than five years;

(b) Crimes of paragraph (2): Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years and six months;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

A. With respect to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act No. 1 in the holding, the sentencing guidelines are not set, and since the violation of the Public Official Election Act is mutually competition with the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

B. Judgment No. 2

【Determination of Punishment】 Type 1 (Perjury)

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : Where perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial.

Reduction element: Self-denunciation and Self-Confession

[Scope of Recommendation] Ten months to Three years (Aggravated Field)

3. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, who is an employee of the NIS EF team, committed the instant crime in collusion with the executive officers of the NIS including J, and the employees of the E group, by supporting, praiseing, and opposing and slandering the president and the political parties belonging thereto, and by using the status as a public official prohibited under the Act on the National Intelligence Service and election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act, and thereafter, conducted an election campaign by taking advantage of the status as a public official prohibited under the Public Official Election Act, and thereafter, given the above cyber activities at the judgment of K, etc. according to the organizational response of the NIS to reduce and abolish the above cyber activities. In addition, the legislative intent of the NIS Act to prevent the political intervention of the NIS staff of the NIS while the Defendant committed a separate penal provision was dismissed, and in light of the fact that the discovery of substantial truth for a considerable period of time in the trial by the Defendant’s above-mentioned evidence, the nature of the crime and the criminal intent are not somewhat weak.

However, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant, as a subordinate staff member under the direction of the head of the team and the head of the agency affiliated therewith, came to commit the instant crime in the course of passive implementation of the command system. In particular, the Defendant’s criminal act by Q activities appears to have been committed at the time of performance of duties at the time of the Defendant’s performance of duties, and the Defendant, for more than 30 years, has faithfully served in the NIS and retired from office after the instant case, and that there was no criminal record, and that there was no record of criminal punishment, and that there was no good health condition such as being hospitalized several times due to brain diseases, etc.

In addition to these various circumstances, each sentence shall be determined as ordered and the execution of each imprisonment shall be suspended, taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, character and environment, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments and arguments.6)

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant conspireds with K, L, M, and the NIS EF team employees, etc. in sequence, as described in Paragraph 1 of the same Article, and posted 361 cases of letters related to the election, as described in Paragraph 1 of the attached Table 3, from June 7, 2012 to December 14, 2012, and 430 cases of letters involved in political activities, such as Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the same Article, respectively, from February 4, 2012 to September 20, 2012.

2. Determination as to whether it constitutes an election campaign or political intervention

A. Relevant legal principles

In principle, individual acts constituting an inclusive crime should meet the elements of each crime. In a case where posting a letter through Q et al. constitutes a crime of violating the National Intelligence Service Act or a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act, whether each writing constitutes a political intervention or election campaign shall be determined by closely examining the comprehensive circumstances, such as the specific contents, context, etc. of each individual notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1513, Dec. 23, 2015).

(b) Criteria for determining whether an election campaign is an election campaign or political intervention.

(a) An election campaign;

A) Relevant legal principles

An election campaign refers to all acts that are advantageous to the purpose of promoting an election or defeat in the election of a specific candidate, which are necessary or favorable for the election or winning in the election (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4146, Jan. 23, 2014). Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act defines the concept of "election campaign" by using the criteria of "election" as the requirement for an election campaign. Thus, the concept of an election campaign is premised on the fact that it is an act for the election or defeat in the election of a candidate at least 'specific' or at least 'specific', and an act for the purpose of obtaining votes of a specific political party refers to an act for the election of a candidate recommended by the relevant political party as well as an act for the purpose of obtaining votes of a specific political party, but even in this case, a speech supporting a specific political party can meet the concept of an election campaign, but a specific political party can be decided by the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2014Na514, May 204, 2014.

(B) Specific criteria

In light of the above legal principles, Twewewelgles and retwelgles posted by the Defendant (hereinafter “twelgles, etc.”) that are recognized as election campaigns in relation to the presidential election of the AOF, are limited to ① Timely, in the case of Twelgles, etc. supporting or opposing a specific candidate, after the date of the withdrawal declaration of the candidate for each presidential election indicated below, in the case of Twelgles, etc. supporting or opposing a specific political party after the date on which the candidate for the presidential election of each political party listed in the same table becomes final and conclusive, and ② the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate can be objectively recognized.

A person shall be appointed.

2) Political participation

A) Relevant statutes

Article 9(2) of the former National Intelligence Service Act provides that one of the acts involved in political activities refers to the act of disseminating opinions that support or oppose a specific political party or politician by taking advantage of his or her position, or her opinion or fact that praises or slanders a particular political party or politician for the purpose of forming such public opinion (Article 9(2)).

B) Criteria for determining each type

(1) If it is evident that the contents of Twelgle, such as Twelgle, which directly supports or oppose a particular political party or politician, are the intention of directly supporting or opposing the relevant political party or politician, it constitutes participation in political activities as a matter of course.

(2) Even if the main purpose or motive of this article is to cope with North Korea’s black propaganda or gaundation and gagrating behavior, such as twelgles that support and safeguard the current and present president, etc., if the objective contents led to support or opposition against a specific political party or politician, it can be deemed as an act of participating in political activities prohibited by the NISA. In particular, since the president concurrently holds the status as a accompanying of the government and the status as a politician, QW activities that support and advocate the current president should be deemed as an act of supporting the current and present president, a specific political party, or the president, and constitutes an act of participating in political activities.

(3) In the case of security issues, such as Twelves, etc., concerning security issues, the conflict between political parties and political forces may necessarily lead to a conflict of opinions. As such, Twelves, etc. on security issues cannot be deemed as immediately involved in political activities. However, if Twelves, etc. contain the contents supporting or opposing the position, policy, etc. of a specific political party or political party related to the matter in question, it is reasonable to regard such activities as engaging in political activities.

(4) It is difficult to see that the Superintendent of an Office of Education, such as Twitgles, is a political person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3112, Jan. 14, 2016). The Twitgles, etc. to the effect that support or opposition a specific superintendent of education is not, in principle, an act involved in political activities. However, in cases where a specific political party’s opinion or opposition is subject to conflict of political opinions by clarifying the consent or opposition of the superintendent of education regarding educational policies, etc., the support or opposition to the superintendent of education may lead to support or opposition to a specific political party, and thus, it can

C. Determination on individual Twelves, etc.

In full view of the legal principles and the judgment criteria as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the posting of the above tweweweets, etc. is an election campaign because it is difficult to see the contents of the tweweets, etc. as being related to a specific political party or candidate, and it cannot be deemed that the posting of the above tweweets, etc. is an election campaign because it is difficult to see the contents of the tweweets, etc. listed in paragraph (2) of the same Article as supporting or opposing a specific political party or candidate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and a violation of the Public Official Election Act, the sentence of innocence shall not be

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Young-ho

Judgment of the Prosecutor

The specific facts are partially recognized differently from the facts charged.

2) = 35,766 - 13,644 -361.

3) = 69,288- (13,644 + 2,400) – (361 + 69).

4) Even if several false statements are made as witnesses with different dates for pleading at the same instance, after maintaining the effect of the first oath.

As long as testimony was made, perjury is constituted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9463, Mar. 15, 2007).

5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 38 of the Criminal Act, Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act, the public official election act shall separately sentence a concurrent offender who commits an election crime and another crime.

The purport of this provision is to minimize the impact of other crimes, which are not an election criminal, on the sentencing of the election criminal.

Article 38 of the Criminal Code shall be excluded and sentenced separately, so other crimes in relation to an election criminal and an ordinary concurrent relationship shall be committed.

In accordance with Article 40 of the Criminal Code, the punishment for the most severe crime should be imposed, and in this case, the Public Official Election Act differs from the election crime.

In light of the legislative intent of handling and the amendment history of the provision, an election without asking whether the most severe crime punished is an election criminal;

Any crime in the ordinary concurrent relationship with the criminal shall be treated as an election criminal in total (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do636, Apr. 23, 1999).

(ix) the Commission;

6) On February 23, 2012, the Defendant did not engage in Q activities, such as the facts charged, before being placed at AO Team, thereby requesting to reflect such activities in sentencing.

A prosecutor asserts that he/she did not participate in the case on June 8, 2018 by filing an application for changes in the indictment, but the prosecutor asserts that he/she did not participate in the case.

The prosecution was withdrawn on the part of the net side 1 to Q 1221 of the sight table (1).

7) Subparagraph 4 of the same paragraph is an act of participating in political activities, such as election campaigns for a particular political party or person or participating in election-related meetings.

Since the tweets, which are recognized as election campaign, are automatically involved in political activities.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.