Defendants are innocent.

Each summary of the judgment against the Defendants shall be published.

A. Summary of the facts charged in the judgment subject to review

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Case progress

The following facts are apparent in the records or obvious to party members:

(1) On August 14, 1981, the Defendants charged with violation of the National Security Act with Hongsung branch of the Daejeon District Court (81Gohap126). The lower court acknowledged the Defendants as guilty of the facts charged [Attachment 1] on December 17, 1981, and sentenced the Defendants to life imprisonment, and sentenced the rest of the facts charged (including the acquittal of the reasons).

(2) The Defendants appealed to this court (82No325) on the guilty portion of the above judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing. This court rejected the assertion of mistake of facts on May 10, 1982, and reversed the conviction portion of the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the unfair sentencing is reasonable, and then sentenced Defendant 1 to imprisonment for 10 years, suspension of qualifications for 10 years, and suspension of qualifications for 7 years, and suspension of qualifications for 7 years, respectively (hereinafter “the judgment on retrial”).

(3) The Defendants appealed and appealed to the Supreme Court (82Do1418). Defendant 2 was released by the suspension of detention on June 18, 1982, but died on July 4 of the same year. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant 1’s appeal on July 27, 1982, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive. However, Defendant 2 was dismissed on the ground that the Defendant died.

(4) On August 30, 2010, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s children filed a petition for review with this court. On February 24, 2011, the court held that the investigators performing the duties of judicial police officers committed unlawful acts on April 17, 1981, and Defendant 2 on March 31, 1981 without a warrant, and that on July 11, 1981, the arrest warrant was issued to the Defendants, the investigation was conducted with illegal confinement of the Defendants on the 0000s in Seosan and the 2000sssssssss in the Chungcheongnamnam Police Bureau and the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the 20s in the judgment subject to review.

C. The part concerning Defendant 2

The review system in the criminal procedure can be understood as a system pursuing substantive truth or justice within the scope of not endangering legal stability in the case of conflict between substantial truth or justice through the correction of legal stability and error in the final judgment. However, on the other hand, the review system in the current criminal procedure law, which permits only benefit review, can be understood as a system based on the due process clause in the Constitution, and it can be understood as an institutional purpose to guarantee human rights through the legal remedy of citizens who can be dismissed by the due process clause in the Constitution.

On the premise of such understanding of the institutional purpose of the retrial, Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the subject of the retrial as a final judgment of conviction is based on the fact that the subject of the retrial can no longer be contested through the ordinary appeal procedure. It is not because the formal final conviction itself is understood as having a special legal meaning that actively prescribes the permissible nature of the retrial in terms of the legal remedy of citizens, regardless of the possibility of ordinary appeal procedure.

From this point of view, even in the case where a judgment of conviction was rendered through the first and second instance court due to reasons outside the lawsuit such as the death of the defendant, the effect of the judgment of conviction as above is not recognized legally differently from the final and conclusive judgment of conviction. However, as in the case where a final and conclusive judgment of conviction became unable to be contested with the substantive relation of the crime, exceptional relief is not denied, and therefore, it is deemed that a retrial under Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the legal remedy of citizens who can be dismissed, is allowed even in this case, accords with the above institutional purpose of retrial. Article 25(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act provides that a person who has been dismissed pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act, may claim compensation for detention against the State if there was a significant reason for the judgment of innocence if there was no reason for the dismissal of a public prosecution, but in light of the institutional nature of the aforementioned procedure or the above procedure without the substantive relation through litigation, it cannot be deemed that there is no sufficient reason to permit the above limitation of criminal compensation procedure.

Ultimately, in this case, the judgment subject to a retrial against Defendant 2 is subject to a retrial in accordance with Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

There is no fact that the Defendants discovered military secrets, praise and encourage North Korea’s friendship, thereby provoking North Korea’s abduction, or that they prepared and imprisoned escape into North Korea’s abduction.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable.

3. [Attachment 1] Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts as to the facts charged

A. The admissibility of each suspect interrogation protocol, statement and self-written statement as to Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 prepared by the prosecutor and the judicial police officer, each suspect interrogation protocol and written statement as to Defendant 2 prepared by the judicial police officer, each protocol and written statement as to Nonindicted 3 and 4 prepared by the prosecutor and the judicial police officer, and each written statement as to Nonindicted 3 and 4

(1) The following facts or circumstances are acknowledged according to the records (Evidence No. 4-9, 10, 35, 39, 40, 43, 45, 52, 55, 57, 61 through 72) of the History Settlement Commission for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “Settlement Commission”), and the investigation records and trial records.

(A) The circumstances of North Korea and after their return

① On October 25, 1971, the Defendants (Defendant 1 is the external grandchildren of Defendant 2) 21, including the Defendants, on October 25, 1971, on board the △△△△△ located in the inshore of Ulllllledo, and returned to the North Korean government on September 7, 1972, one year after he returned to the North Korean government.

② After returning to the Republic of Korea, Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, suspension of qualifications for one year, and suspension of execution for a violation of the former Public Law in the early branch of the Chuncheon District Court on November 24, 1972. Defendant 2 was sentenced to imprisonment for the same offense in the same court on May 3, 1973, and one year of suspension of qualifications for the same offense, and was serving in the Daejeon Correctional Institution on September 24, 1972.

③ Since then, the Defendants were directors of Seosan-gun, and Defendant 2 was the engineer of the Masan-gun of the fishing vessel, and Defendant 1 was the crew of Nonindicted 2, etc. Around August 1980, Defendant 2 was the guardian of the fishing vessel, and Defendant 1 was the guardian of the male-do, and Defendant 1 was the senior senior on December 12, 1980.

(b) the commencement and process of the investigation;

① A criminal summary report prepared by the Seosan Police Station and the Chungcheong Police Bureau (No. 1:48-90 of the Investigation Record) states to the effect that “Defendant 2 made a false statement that there is no special order despite the long-term acceptance of the case in North Korea by the Defendant 2 for a long time, together with the North Korea’s return fishing division and the father, etc.; and that he was taking advantage of the case in which he was accompanied by the Defendant 2, with the North Korea’s return fishing division and the father, etc.; and that he attempted to detect the act of inciting against the fishing division during the process of the official work with the C grade C approval; and that he was led to the Defendants’ commencement of investigation. During Defendant 1’s examination, Nonindicted 2 discovered that he was aware that the Defendants had prepared and taken the escape of the illegal area, but did not notify the investigation

② On March 15, 1981, the Seosan Police Station secured a witness’s statement from Non-Indicted 5 to Non-Indicted 5 on the content that Defendant 2 praises North Korea (hereinafter address 1 omitted). On March 27, 1981, the Seosan Police Station obtained a warrant of search and seizure of Defendant 2’s house located in the Namyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter address 2 omitted), and seized and seized Defendant 2’s house on March 30, 1981 (hereinafter “Investigation Record No. 101”).

③ On April 23, 1981, the Seosan Police Station began to receive the written self-statement from Defendant 2 on April 23, 1981, and received five written statements and three written statements and three written statements as to Defendant 1, and three written statements as to Defendant 1.

(C) Illegal detention

① Defendant 2, on the ground that the Defendants did not follow lawful procedures, such as the presentation of a detention warrant, etc. on March 30, 1981, and the warrant of detention was lawfully issued ( July 11, 1981) for 104 days before July 12, 1981, on the ground that the Defendants, at the time of their arrival, collected national secrets according to the North Korea’s movement order and engaged in encouraging and praiseing North Korea. Defendant 2 did not follow the lawful procedures, including the presentation of a detention warrant on April 17, 1981; Defendant 1 did not follow the lawful procedures, such as the presentation of a detention warrant on July 11, 1981, and the detention warrant was issued lawfully ( July 11, 1981) and was presented in the form of voluntary acting, without complying with the warrant of detention on July 12, 1981.

② Prior to June 30, 1981, Nonindicted Party 2 was committed in the same manner as above, Nonindicted Party 2 was detained illegally for at least nine days until July 8, 1981 (No. 1128 of the Investigation Records) and directed the prosecutor to be undetained (No. 1128 of the Investigation Records).

③ Nonindicted 3 (Inception of Defendant) was committed in the same way for seven days, and Nonindicted 4 was detained in an unlawful manner for three days, respectively.

(D) Cruel acts and the background of confessions of crimes

① Defendant 1 was involved in the ○○ in a scam by an investigator of the Seosan Police Station, and became a water adviser (a tap-water mating to the ice flaf). In the underground protocol in the Yannam Police Station, Defendant 1 was forced the investigator to make a gel by sticking pentle between the knee and the knee, knee, knee, knee, and knee, followed by the knee, and was feled. Defendant 1 was a harsh act, such as hump, electric adviser, and knee, knee, etc., kneing the knee, knee, knee, knee, knee, kne, etc., kneing the face. Defendant 1, as seen above, forced the investigator to make a confession, and forced Defendant 1 to make a false confession.

② Nonindicted 4 was summoned by the Red Police Station and appeared at the police station to undergo an investigation. The said investigators were fluored with the eye boomed in the snow, and were fluored into the fact of investigation. At that place, Defendant 1 denied that Defendant 1 did not engage in the embling or counter-espionage activities, and the investigators attempted to arrest Defendant 1’s counter-espionage for two (2) days, instead of having locked, without having made a statement about Defendant 1’s counter-espionage activities. As such, Nonindicted 4 made a false statement that “as indicated in the facts charged, Defendant 1 was fluored to himself” as asked by the investigators. Nonindicted 4 made a statement as above and was released only on the following day (three (three (three) days).

③ Nonindicted 3 accepted the engine at the mother port wharf, and went to the Seogsan Police Station in the form of voluntary movement by investigators. Nonindicted 3 denied the Defendants’ criminal facts, Nonindicted 3 returned to 5 investigators, and asked repeated questions for 6 days, and stated that “I would die without cooperation with the State,” and the investigator made a false statement on the Defendants’ criminal facts as prescribed by the investigator. Nonindicted 3 was released only on the day following the said statement and the following day (seven days).

(e) Investigations and statements in the prosecution;

① After completing the police investigation on July 28, 1981, Defendants were sent to the Seo-gu District Prosecutors’ Office of Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office (afterward Defendants were sent to the Hongsung Branch Office of Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office on August 3, 1981).

② Defendant 2 denied all of the facts of the crime in the investigation (in the interrogation protocol) more than three times by the prosecution (However, as seen thereafter, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that it seems consistent with the attached Form 3. 3.).

③ Defendant 1, upon receiving an investigation at the prosecutor’s office, denied the facts of the crime first at the same time. Accordingly, Defendant 1 led Defendant 1 to the prosecutor’s office that he would send Defendant 1 again to the police, thereby recognizing the facts of the crime as asked by the prosecutor’s investigator, thereby making a false confession. Following the day, Defendant 1 did not speak as to whether the prosecutor stated the facts.

(f) Statements by witnesses related to legal statements at the Truth and Reconciliation Committee

① Nonindicted 4: The notion of coercion that Nonindicted 1 could be detained even if he had made a good speech to Defendant 1, even if he had an atmosphere when he was investigated by the police. Therefore, in order to not be detained, the investigator made a false statement and released as desired by the investigator. In the court, even though he denied the part recognized by the police, the police could not know what year he would return to him (Evidence 4-39) recognized in the court (Evidence 4-39).

② Nonindicted 3 was investigated by the prosecution for about 5 minutes, and the prosecutor tried to answer the protocol prepared by the police, and the prosecutor respondeded to the answer that is not the case. The prosecutor respondeded to the fear that the statement made by the police would be disadvantageous or unreasonable if the statement made by the police was denied in the court (No. 40 of the evidence No. 40 of the evidence).

(2) Relevant statutes and legal principles

Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that evidence collected in violation of the due process shall not be admitted as evidence. Article 309 of the same Act denies the admissibility of evidence of illegally collected evidence. In addition, Article 309 of the same Act provides that "a confession of a defendant shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt in a case where there are reasons to suspect that the confession of the defendant does not have been made voluntarily by means of adviser, assault, threat, unduly prolonged detention of body, deception or other means," and Article 317 (1) of the same Act provides that "a statement made by a defendant or a person other than the defendant shall not be admitted as evidence unless it is proved that the statement made at will, which is its preparation or content, has been made, shall not be admitted as evidence." Article 317 (2) of the same Act provides that "The document prepared by the defendant or a person who is not the defendant, shall not be admitted as evidence unless it is proved that the statement made at will, which is its preparation or content, is admissible as evidence."

Meanwhile, even if the defendant was not forced to make a confession at the time of his examination before the public prosecutor, the confession before the public prosecutor shall be deemed to have no voluntariness in the case where the defendant made a false confession without any voluntariness by adviser at the time of the investigation by the investigation agency other than the public prosecutor and the state of voluntariness continues before the investigation by the public prosecutor (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2409, Nov. 24, 1992). The purport of denying the admissibility of a false statement is to prevent in advance that the statement made under the condition that there is a risk of causing or coercioning a false statement in itself from being inconsistent with the substantive truth, and that there is no illegal and unfair pressure infringing on the basic human rights of the person who made the statement regardless of its authenticity. Thus, if there is a dispute over voluntariness, the defendant shall not prove any reasonable and detailed fact, and if the public prosecutor proves that voluntarinessiness is not admissible as evidence, the court shall render 200 evidence ex officio where the defendant is unable to testify evidence.

(3) Determination

Based on the relevant provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendants, Nonindicted 2, 4, and 3 were detained in an unlawful detention without a long-term warrant after being committed by investigators. Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2, 4, and 3 (hereinafter “Defendant 1, etc.”) also knew that they were forced to make an unvoluntary confession by being subject to various advisory and harsh acts. Also, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2, 4, and 3 (hereinafter “Defendant 1, etc.”) were detained for a long time. ② The investigation process of the instant case was ① illegal confinement for a long time; ② Defendant 1, Nonindicted 4, 3, 7 (Evidence 49-49), Nonindicted 8 (Evidence 4-4), Nonindicted 55, 7), Defendant 1’s statement of the grounds for appeal (the trial record), Defendant 492, Defendant 52, and Defendant 1’s testimony at the stage of examination and resolution at the Truth Committee’s discretion, and there were no other reasons to prove the prosecutor’s testimony at the same time.

Ultimately, each protocol of interrogation, statement and self-written statement of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 prepared by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer, each protocol of interrogation and written statement of Defendant 2 prepared by a judicial police officer, and each protocol of statement and written statement of Nonindicted 3 and 4 prepared by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer are inadmissible.

B. Whether the prosecutor’s and the senior judicial police officer’s written statement on Nonindicted 10, 11, and 12, each written statement on Nonindicted 13, 14, and 15 (No. 1452 of the Investigation Records) prepared by the senior judicial police officer is admissible as evidence, and Nonindicted 16’s written statement on Nonindicted 16

Each statement of Nonindicted 10, 11, and 12 prepared by the prosecutor and the senior judicial police officer (No. 1st, 393, 410, 1354, 2nd, 17, 57, 80th, 13, 14, and 15th, 14, and 15th8 of the investigation record) on each statement of Nonindicted 13, 14, and 15th, prepared by the judicial police officer (No. 1st, 345, 479, 1452 of the investigation record), and Nonindicted 16’s self-statement (No. 1st, 270, 274 second, 9 of the investigation record) are inadmissible on the date on which the original person made the trial (the defendant consented to these evidence).

C. The probative value of the remainder evidence

(1) Each statement made by Nonindicted 16 (232 pages of the trial record), the prosecutor and the senior judicial police officer on Nonindicted 16’s preparation of the witness Nonindicted 16’s written statement (2, 32, 1, 258 pages of the investigation record)

[Attachment 1] In relation to the facts charged 1. A. (6) through (9) and (b) (6), Nonindicted 16 made a statement to the effect that it conforms to each of the above facts charged at an investigation agency and a court. However, the first self-written statement (No. 1.274 pages) prepared by Nonindicted 16 on May 21, 1981 at the investigation stage was prepared by the police officer in charge (No. 17 criminal records) around August 2, 1980 and asked specific talks at the bar of Defendant 1. On August 10, 198, it is difficult to conclude that the first written statement was made by Nonindicted 1, 16, and that the first written statement was made by Nonindicted 1, 16, and the first written statement prepared by Nonindicted 16, 16, and the first written statement prepared by Nonindicted 3, 16, 16, and 16, 16, 16, and 16, 16, 16, etc.

(2) The witness Nonindicted 4’s legal statement (240 pages of the trial record)

[Attachment 1] In relation to the facts charged 1. A. (1), 2.(2)(3)(7), Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the above facts charged at an investigation agency and a court. However, as seen earlier, Nonindicted 4 was detained in the investigation stage as well as was subject to harsh treatment, and ② The Truth and Reconciliation Committee made a statement to the effect that “The fact that it was recognized by the police after denying the part recognized by the police at the court, it cannot be known that it was recognized by the police at the court,” the above evidence alone is insufficient to prove the facts charged.

(3) The defendant non-indicted 2's statement in court (163, 429, 441-442 of the trial record)

[Attachment 1] In relation to the facts charged 1. A. (2) through (5) and (b) (5), Non-Indicted 2 made a statement to the effect that the above facts charged are consistent with the above facts charged at the court. However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the military secrets discovered and collected by Defendant 1 can be deemed to have been known to all the visitors on board the ship at the time; (b) the defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that he did not inquire about the facts charged; and (c) the defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that there was no publicity of the character of North Korea; and (d) the defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that the defendant 1's legal statement of Non-Indicted 14 (1) of the trial record 570 pages 1); and (c) the non-indicted 2 was illegally detained in the investigation agency for a long time as seen earlier, it is insufficient to prove the facts charged alone.

(4) Nonindicted 3’s legal statement (the trial record 302 pages) of the witness

[Attachment 1] In relation to the facts charged 1.B.(1) of the charge, Nonindicted 3 stated in the court that “Defendant 1 was punished with the meal content in the North Korea, and Defendant 1 had talked that she was flick in the inn.” At the same time, it is insufficient to prove the above facts charged solely on the basis of the following: (i) Defendant 1, who was found at his house, was able to ask for the lives in the North Korea at the time of his visit to the North Korea; and (ii) Nonindicted 15 (Defendant 1’s leakage) also stated that he was a talk with the North Korea that he was flick in the house (the trial record 308 pages); and (iii) Defendant 1 had experienced experience or acquired knowledge in the North Korea at the time of his payment to the North Korea at the same time.

(5) The witness Nonindicted 18, 19, and 20’s each legal statement (248, 409, and 414 of the trial record), the statement of Nonindicted 20 of the prosecutor’s preparation (2:47 of the investigation record), each statement of Nonindicted 20, 19, and 18 of the judicial police officer’s preparation (321, 339, 354 of the investigation record), and Nonindicted 19’s self-statement (344 pages of the investigation record)

[Attachment 1] In relation to the facts charged 1.B.(4), Nonindicted 18, 19, and 20 made a statement to the effect that they correspond to the above facts charged from the investigative agency to the court of original trial. However, it is insufficient to prove the following facts by considering the following as a whole: (i) more than 10 seafarers made a statement to the same purport as the above facts charged; (ii) more than 10 seafarers made a natural talk by asking North Korea; and (iii) Nonindicted 13 (b) Nonindicted 20 weeks 14) made a statement to the effect that Defendant 1 made such statement to that effect; (iv) it appears that Defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that he did not take part in North Korea; and (iii) it appears that Defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that he did not take part in North Korea; and (iv) it appears that Defendant 1 continued surveillance by an investigative agency after North Korea’s deposit with North Korea, and (iii) it appears that he paid the above facts charged with North Korea.

(6) Each protocol of statement (No. 91, 163, 171, 298, 308, 383, 502, 202, 1, 9, 36, 42, 61 of the investigation record) and court statement (the trial record of 188, 195, 200, 205, 205, 210, 210, 216, 222 of the investigation record) prepared by the prosecutor and judicial police officer, written statement of Nonindicted 6 prepared by the prosecutor and judicial police officer (No. 1,420, 39 of the investigation record), written statement of the prosecutor and judicial police officer prepared by the defendant

Defendant 2’s statement from Nonindicted 5, 21, 22, 8, 9, 23, 7, 6, and 2 to the lower court’s investigation agency is that Defendant 2 asked the same content as that of the charges No. 2. A., or made a statement to the same effect as that of the charges No. 2.B. However, Defendant 2 consistently denied the crime since the prosecutorial office, and Defendant 2’s talked with Nonindicted 5, etc., ② it is difficult to evaluate that Defendant 2 engaged in encouraging and embling North Korea as having experienced from North Korea and experienced from North Korea and shot in that it was hard to evaluate that Defendant 2 had experienced from North Korea and shoted from North Korea. ③ Defendant 2 had been under surveillance by the public prosecutorial office of North Korea after she returned and had been subject to restrictions on departure from North Korea, and it appears that Defendant 2 had been aware of the content of the charges as stated in the separate charges No. 2.1 [Attachment No. 2], and it appears that Defendant 9 or investigation agency was likely to have discovered.

(7) Each written statement of the prosecutor concerning the defendant 2 prepared by the prosecutor (No. 1, No. 1472, No. 2, No. 117 of the investigation record), the witness Nonindicted 24, and No. 25 (No. 227, No. 291 of the trial record), Nonindicted 24, 25, and 15 of the prosecutor's and senior judicial police officer's preparation (No. 1 of the investigation record, No. 294, 360, 471, No. 23, 29 of the investigation record)

[Attachment 1] In relation to the facts charged 3.3., the statement made by Defendant 2 at the prosecutor's office refers to Defendant 1 as to whether Defendant 1 would escape from the ship, and ② Nonindicted 24's investigation stage up to the court below's order was determined as to whether Defendant 1's "the price of a fishing vessel of three to four tons" around September 1980, and Nonindicted 25 and 15's statement also stated as to Defendant 25 and 15's statement to the effect that "the person who sent a letter to the effect that Defendant 2 would go back from the ship at the end of 1979" is insufficient to prove the facts charged. Thus, it is insufficient to prove the above facts charged.

(8) Seizure records, etc. prepared by judicial police officers

The protocol of seizure was seized at Defendant 2’s house located in Namyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter address 2 omitted), and the above one radio was seized at the time. The above evidence refers to the evidence that supports the confession of Defendant 2 when Defendant 2 confessions, but the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged against Defendant 2. As such, the protocol of seizure and evidence alone are insufficient to prove the facts charged against Defendant 2. As such, the protocol of seizure and evidence that contain the confession of Defendant 2 are inadmissible (the defendant 2 consistently denies the crime since the prosecutor’s office).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, in full view of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize the attached facts charged against the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime and thus, the court below found the Defendants guilty. Thus, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, as the appeal by the defendants is well-grounded, it cannot be maintained as it is, and as long as the conviction part is reversed, the part of the defendants' innocence cannot be maintained as it is. Thus, pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants (including the part of the acquittal as to the facts charged) shall be reversed, and it shall be decided again after pleading as follows.

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as set forth in the judgment 3.

2. [Attachment 2] 1. Part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 was the time limit for the above facts charged by the police and the prosecution, but the court of the court below found the military installations, etc. as stated in the above facts charged but rejected or denied the assertion that there was no intention to detect or collect. Of the above facts charged, the defendant 2 denies the facts charged in paragraph (12) in the court, and on the other hand, it is insufficient to reinforce the confession of the defendant 1 by the prosecutor in the prosecution as stated in paragraphs (1) through (15) of the above facts charged by the prosecutor, even if it is all other evidences submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

3. [Attachment 2] 2. Part of the facts charged

The Defendants denied the above facts charged from the police to the court of the court below. According to the record of Nonindicted 7’s statement prepared by the judicial police officer, it is only recognized that the Defendants were employed on board the ferry in the front of the fishing vessel, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendants conspired to escape from the North Korean territory as the date and time stated in the above facts charged.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants are acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because all the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of crime. Furthermore, according to Articles 440 and 58(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the summary of the judgment against the Defendants shall be publicly announced.

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

Judges Cho Jae-chul(Presiding Judge)

(1) Although the date of preparation of the written report on the offender was written on July 6, 1981, the investigation of the Defendants seems to have commenced more than this point as shown below.

2) The first police statement against Nonindicted 2 was written on June 30, 1981 (No. 1st right 509 of the investigation record). Nonindicted 2’s self-written statement (No. 1st right 1030-1041 of the investigation record), which appears to have been written prior to the statement, is not written.

주3) 공소외 7(증 제4호증의 49)은 진실화해위원회에서 ‘공소외 2는 피고인 1과 관련하여 진술을 우물쭈물한다며 며칠 동안 석방되지 않고 조사를 받았다’고 진술하였다.

Note 4) Nonindicted 3 prepared a written self-statement on May 15, 1981 (No. 1st, title 292 of the Investigation Record) and again prepared a written self-written statement on May 25, 1981 (No. 1st, title 293 of the Investigation Record). After May 25, 1981, Nonindicted 3 prepared a written statement at ○○○○○○○ (No. 1st, title 282 of the Investigation Record).

Note 5) Nonindicted 4 prepared a self-written statement on June 8, 1981 (No. 1 title 461 of the Investigation Record), and prepared a written statement in the Chungcheong Police Authority on the 9th of the same month (No. 1 title 447 of the Investigation Record).

6) As seen earlier, Nonindicted 4’s written statement appears to have been prepared in the Republic of Korea, and it appears that it was an underground protocol in the Daenam Police Bureau of the Republic of Korea.

Note 7) In the investigation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Nonindicted 8 made a statement that “Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 9 were under investigation for a long time, and Nonindicted 8 made a lot of statements to police officers.”

Note 8) Of the depositions made by the judicial police officer with Nonindicted 15, the first right to 1452 investigation records among the depositions made by the judicial police officer against Nonindicted 15 were not acknowledged to have been genuine on the date of trial (308 pages of the

9) Nonindicted 16 acknowledged the authenticity only by the statement prepared by the prosecutor and the senior judicial police officer on the trial date (the trial record 236 pages).

Note 10) During the process of fishing as crew members, military installations, etc. are being asked and talked naturally about the day that was or was in North Korea.

주11) ◈◈◈◈◈에 미사일 발사하는 소리를 들었고, 토요일, 일요일에는 포를 쏜다는 이유로 정박을 못하게 한다. ◐◐◐에 레이다 기지가 있다는 것은 배타고 다니는 사람은 다 안다. 안면읍 (이하 생략) 근처 해상을 항해하면 군인이 나와 신호를 한다(공판기록 569~570쪽).

Note 12) The summary of Nonindicted 18’s statement: The Defendant 1 appeared in North Korea at the time of the North Korea’s delivery while having talked about Nonindicted 18’s statements among seafarers.

13) The summary of Non-Indicted 19’s statement: He divided the 19’s statement into a flever and flever at the line room, and she asked Defendant 1 about whether the two North Koreas are good, and the Defendant was in the North Korea. He heard that the Defendant went to the North Korea, and he asked the Defendant. He did not seem to go to go to the North Korea.

14) The summary of Non-Indicted 20’s statement: After completing work, she was aware of who she was sent to Defendant 1 and was in North Korea from among his former crew members (Sixth, it may not be known that she was in North Korea). The Defendant (attached Form 1] 1.B.(4) of the facts charged. Non-Indicted 20 did not report to the investigation agency on a usual basis. It did not seem that she was in the east.