1. The summary of the first fact among the facts constituting the Defendant’s criminal facts which the court below found guilty is as follows.

In other words, the defendant recommended the non-indicted 1's constitution and the abnormal citizens to read the right to documentary evidence, such as (1) economic theory, which is a letter of "research on the development of capitalism", based on the principle of publicism that has been conducted for the mother lease and assistance of the United Kingdom, and the publicization of South and North Korea decided that it would be unified rather than the failure of the failure to join a meeting of the world of the third world, and (2) it is due to the lack of the real ability of South Korea that North Korea would result in a lack of diplomatic influence compared to North Korea, and thus, South Korea would be obsting, encouraging, and assisting in the activities of foreign public affiliation and anti-government organizations.

According to the records, the defendant led to confession of the above crime at the investigation stage up to the prosecutor's office, and denied the above remarks since the court of first instance. Thus, there is only the prosecutor's statement as to the abnormal prosecutor's evidence admitted by the court below in addition to the confession in the prosecutor's office.

However, the defendant asserts that he continued confessions in the situation where the police officer's mental state of voluntariness is continued due to the prolonged confinement of the witness of the first instance trial without the consent of the detention warrant. According to the testimony and the investigation records of the witness of the first instance trial, the defendant, as alleged in the defendant, was investigated in the form of voluntary confinement in April 9, 1981, after he was committed to the police without the consent of the detention warrant, made a statement of confessions to the suspect of the same judicial police officer on April 26, 1981, and made a statement of confessions to the crime, and issued a detention warrant on April 28, 1981. In light of the above series of facts, in light of the above facts, the confessions from the police officer are made in the form of voluntary confinement without the consent of the detention warrant, and there is no reason to suspect that the confessions have been made in the form of voluntary confinement at the same time.

Meanwhile, in the statement of a prosecutor's abnormal statement, there is a statement from the defendant to the effect that the above statement was taken by the defendant as stated in the above judgment, but the above civilian also testified that the defendant would have taken the false statement based on the defendant's self-written statement which was made by force from the court of first instance and the police, and then the prosecutor's office should not have any separate interest to reverse the false statement. Therefore, in light of the contents of the testimony and the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the defendant's self-written statement as mentioned above, the contents of the above statement cannot be suspected of being credibility.

Ultimately, the fact that the court below's aforementioned evidence was used as evidence of guilt without examining the voluntariness and credibility of each evidence, is in violation of the rules of evidence collection under the Criminal Procedure Act, and it cannot be said that it violated the rules of evidence collection.

2. The summary of the facts in the holding of the court below is as follows: the Defendant purchased the Defendant’s works from the Republic of Korea or from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea with respect to anti-government organizations by taking out loans from the Republic of Korea or other anti-government organizations for the purpose of taking out loans from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea for the purpose of taking advantage of the aforementioned anti-government organizations, including MAUTRICE ESDDDDD, MADDDDDB, MADDDDDD, Round FDDDDDDDD, Round LUDDDDDDDDD, Round LUDDDDDDDDDDDD, Round, Round, Round, Round University Library, etc.

(1) However, since the crime of Article 4 (2) of the former anti-public law is the crime of manufacturing, importing, copying, keeping, transporting, distributing, selling, or acquiring documents, drawing, or other expressive materials for the purpose of pro-government organizations or their members, or for the purpose of pro-government organizations' or their members, or of pro-government organizations' activities in an anti-government organizations by concerts or in any other way, or by acting in concerts or in any other way, and therefore, the crime of this crime is established, the above objective is required. Thus, the defendant stated that he had no awareness that he had no awareness of the act of pro-government organizations or members, and that he had no awareness of the purpose

(2) In the event that the freedom of academic research guaranteed by the Constitution is recognized only for pure purposes of academic research, and such freedom is held as a means to achieve illegal purposes, for example, an act of producing, importing, reproducing, transporting or distributing documents, books, or other expressive materials by being involved in academic research activities for the purpose of obsting, encouraging, or distributing, the activities of anti-government organizations or overseas public-private partnerships, such as the acts prescribed by Article 4(2) of the former Anti-Public Act or Article 7(5) of the National Security Act, should not be deemed as an academic research.

However, the recognition of the above illegal purpose requires reliable and objective evidence, and simply that the research data acquired and kept by the defendant for academic research is about the idea and value system of anti-government organizations or foreign public-private partnerships, the presumption of the above illegal purpose should not be presumed. This is because the study of the original study is intended to improve or create new ones by raising questions about the existing ideas and values and by criticism, it should be accepted even if the research data is contrary to or in conflict with the existing idea and value system, which is currently accepted in the society.

(3) We examine the case in this case. According to the records, it is evident that the works acquired and kept by the defendant were the works related to Madiceism or Gongsan-do economic theory. However, even if the original adjudication was based on facts, the defendant was purchased or borrowed from the general book stores in Si and university libraries rather than acquired from a secret source. The defendant, as a student who majored in economics in the economics at the Seocho University University at the time of acquiring each of the above works, was admitted as reference documents of the defendant's graduation (the copyrighted works are the same kind as the copyrighted works in the judgment, but are excluded from the statement of facts as stated in the facts in the court below), and if the testimony and modified leapment submitted by the witness at the court of first instance, most of the above decisions in this case can be seen that the defendant's works were read or quoted as material or reference to academic relations at domestic universities or colleges, and therefore, the defendant's presentation that the above works were acquired for the purpose of anti-government organizations or anti-government organizations.

Ultimately, the court below acknowledged facts without any evidence and argued that there is an error of law that misleads the application of the law.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)