(b) Violation of public law;

(c) Spy;

(d) A counter-espionage;

(e) Disclosure of military flags;

(f) The preparation for insurrection;

2. (a) b. (c) d. f. B

3. Ghana; C.

4. (a)(b)(c)(d)(D)- -

5. (a)(c) The net;

6. (a)(b)(c) :

7. (a) b. c. d. the network;

8. (a) b. (c) Doz;

2. Defendant B

3. Defendant C

4. Defendant D

5. Defendant E himself; I

6. Person J of Defendant GN

7. Defendant Gmar Gmar

8. Defendant Hemar L

Parts Concerning Construction

A. The Defendants, including the Defendants, J,0, P (hereinafter referred to as the “Co-defendants”) was indicted as facts charged, such as violation of the National Security Act and violation of public law, and Defendant A and F were sentenced to death penalty, Defendant B and C were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor, 10 years of suspension of qualification, and 10 years of suspension of qualification, Defendant G, H and Co-defendant C were sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor, five years of suspension of qualification, and five years of suspension of qualification (hereinafter referred to as the “decision subject to the judgment”), and Defendant E and Co-defendant P were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the time of Defendant F and Co-Defendant C’s military personnel at the time of suspension of qualification and 197 of the General Security Headquarters Act, and the suspension of qualifications was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the time of suspension of qualifications and 197 of the Act.

B. The Defendants, co-defendants, and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment on retrial (Provided, That the prosecutor appealeded only against the Defendant D, E, G, H, and co-defendants), and the Seoul High Court mitigated only punishment against the co-defendants in the case No. 80Do244 on May 1, 1980, and maintained the sentence of the judgment subject to retrial as it is.

C. Although the Defendants and co-defendants appealed to the Supreme Court on September 9, 1980, the Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals of the Defendants and co-defendants in the case No. 80Do1430 on September 80, 1980, and the judgment of retrial against the Defendants became final and conclusive. Defendant A and F executed death penalty on July 9, 1983.

D. Co-defendant J filed an application for ascertaining the truth with respect to the above case with the Committee for the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation on November 30, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "former Private Committee"), but the Committee for the History of the past is 2007.

2. On 28. 28. The J recognized the violation of the positive law, and rejected the application for ascertaining the truth on the grounds that the grounds for retrial cannot be found. Accordingly, Defendant C, D, E, and Co-Defendant J and Q are 209.

8.3. On June 8, 2010, the former History Committee filed an application for re-verification of the truth with the former History Committee, and the former History Committee decided to file an objection on June 8, 2010, and subsequently dismissed the above application for the period of time stipulated by the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation on the ground that the application was made after the period of time stipulated by the said Framework Act, but the Defendants and co-defendant made a false confession of the facts of the judgment subject to re-adjudication due to the investigation of illegal confinement and cruel acts by the investigation agency, as well as the criminal facts were distorted or distorted. Based on such investigation, the prosecution on the above case was raised based on the investigation, and the judgment subject to re-adjudication became final and conclusive.

E. Accordingly, the Defendants filed a request for a retrial on the subject judgment of the retrial, and this Court held that the Defendants filed a request for a retrial.

2. 18. 18. The Defendants and co-defendants recognized the fact that they were unlawfully arrested or detained or detained from judicial police officers during the investigation process, and such unlawful confinement and harsh acts constitute grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparagraph 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which committed a crime related to their duties by judicial police officers in relation to the investigation that constitutes a crime falling under Articles 124 and 125 of the Criminal Act, but they cannot obtain a final judgment of conviction against each of the above crimes upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the decision to commence a retrial against the Defendants among the judgment subject to retrial was rendered on the ground that "the case constitutes a case where it is impossible to obtain a final judgment," which is a ground for retrial under Article 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act, constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act. On the other hand, this court's decision to commence a retrial against Q on the same day, thereby continuing a new trial with Q Q as the court 20105.

2. Summary of the facts charged

The facts charged against the Defendants are as shown in the attached Form, and the summary thereof is as follows.

3. Determination

(a) Evidence-related evidence submitted by the prosecutor to ABD, BAO, AF, BAO, AB, BAO, BF, AB, BV, BF, AF, BV, BF, BF, BF, BF, BF, BG, BG, BG, CY, BY, CPE, BY, CPE, BY, CPE, BY, MP, CY, BY, CY, CY, CY,P, CY, BY, MP, BY, BY, CY, BY, CY, BY, CY, Y

(b) Evidence opinion

The defense counsel denied the contents of each police interrogation protocol against the co-defendant, each written statement containing the accused's statements, and each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants was denied, and each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the co-defendant was rejected. The prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol against the co-defendant as well as each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol against the co-defendant as well as prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol, written statements or statements on the witness, seizure protocol

C. Determination of admissibility and probative value

1) The existence of an unlawful confinement or cruel act in the course of investigation

According to the facts acknowledged by the record, the defendants and co-defendants were subject to illegal confinement, adviser and cruel act during the investigation process of this case. (A) According to the "report on accompanying the suspects to the defendant D on June 14, 1979", the investigator recorded on June 15, 1979, the defendant C, E, and the co-defendant J on June 21, 1979 and detained the defendants and co-defendants in his house or workplace without the warrant of the court at least 10 days to 30 days.

B) Regarding the present situation, the following are summarized: (a) the statements made in the first instance court and the appellate court and the investigation by the past committee are summarized as follows.

The DoL (DL) investigator in the public room who investigated the Defendants in the past was arrested by the National Security Commission in the form of voluntary behavior as to the process of detained the Defendants in the investigation by the past. At the time, the arrest warrant or detention warrant was issued. It is thought that there was approximately 20 days for the suspect of the National Security Act. The reason for detention for a long time is not that of intending to raise the performance of Hanmadi.

In the investigation of the past history committee, DM investigators in the WM in the Daecheon-gu Office who investigated the Defendants: “At the time, the suspects were too many, they were at the location of HC in the HB elementary school in Chuncheon, and the police officers belonging to the Chuncheon Police Station have gone through surveillance. At the time, they were arrested in the form of voluntary behavior without having been issued a warrant of arrest or a warrant of detention. The date of investigation is well aware of the accurate date of memory, but it is only one-month, which was sent to the Defendant H while the investigation was conducted by DN, and the Defendant became aware of the horses, and the head of the bar was flicked. Since the diagnosis that was made at the time, the diagnosis that was made at the time was made, the police officers were memoryd, and the police officers were bound by the A police police station.

○ Defendant A

On April 3, 1980, at the second trial of the appellate court held in Seoul High Court on April 3, 1980, Defendant A was merely an organization of the Gangwon-do branch as it does not know whether T exists or not, and the espionage was organized. The Gangwon-do branch did not have Defendant C at the scene of election of the Gangwon-do leader

○ Defendant B

피고인 B은 과거사위원회 조사에서 " 1979. 6. 15. 대구 HD건설 현장 직원으로 근무하고 있었는데 회사 직원 1명이 와서 형사들이 찾는다고 하여 가보니 형사 5 ~ 6명이 ' 살인사건에 대해 물어볼 것이 있다 ' 며 수갑을 채우려 해서 놀라 ' 무슨 일로 수갑을 채우느냐 ' 고 하자 권총을 들이대며 ' 순순히 따르지 않으면 죽여 버리겠다 ' 고협박하여 강제로 차에 태워져 남영동에 있는 ' 해양연구소 ' 라는 간판이 걸린 곳에서 조사를 받았다 "" 남영동에서 조사받는데 수사관이 간첩으로 실제 활동한 것처럼 자백하라고 해서 사실이 아니라고 하자 수사관이 사정없이 뺨을 때리기 시작했는데 얼굴에 감각이 없어졌다. 당시 귀 뒤쪽을 몽둥이로 맞아 지금도 귀가 잘 들리지 않는다. 양어깨를 몽둥이로 많이 맞아 팔을 움직이지 못했고, 엎드린 채로 허벅지를 맞아 살갗이 찢어져 피투성이가 되어 대변을 보기 힘들 정도였다. 또한 팔을 뒤로 돌려 묶고 다리를 묶어서 얼굴을 위로 향하게 하여 욕조에 집어넣고 수도꼭지를 틀어서 정신을 잃었다. 발목을 묶고 무릎을 꿇게 하고 손을 묶은 다음 양팔 사이로 무릎을 넣게 하더니 오금에 각목을 끼우고 두 사람이 양쪽에서 들고 책상 위에 걸쳐 놓고 뱅글뱅글 돌렸다. 한 번은 발가벗긴 채로 성기를 때리며 성적 희롱을 하면서 ' 자백하지 않으면 네 마누라를 데려와 이 꼴을 만들겠다 ' 며 협박하였다 "" 춘천 대공분실로 이동하여 조사 시에도 구타와 잠을 재우지 않는 건 기본이고 물고문도 다시 시작하였다. 수사관들이 발목에 전선을 묶어 놓고 엄지손 가락에 전선을 감아서 전기고문을 하였다. 신발을 벗어서 구두 뒤축으로 얼굴과 목덜미를 때리고 오금에 몽둥이를 끼우고 꿇어앉게 하고 허벅지를 발로 밟아 거의 정신이 나간 상태가 되었다. 검찰 조사 시에는 검사가 수사기관에서 자백한 것과 동일하게 자백하고 재판에서도 인정하면 중형은 면할 수 있다고 해서 인정을 했는데 조사 도중 일부 부인하자 서기가 뺨을 때리면서 죽고 싶지 않으면 부인하지 말라고 해서 겁이 나서 모두 인정하였다 " 고 진술하였다 .

또한 항소심 법정에서 " 해양연구소라는 간판이 있는 건물에서 일주일 동안 조사를 받았는데, 잠을 안 재우고, 물고문을 하고, 몽둥이로 때렸으며, 짬뽕 국물을 코에다 붓는 등 고문을 하였고, 춘천에 가서 재차 조사를 받을 때에는 몸에 전깃 줄을 묶고 전기고문을 당하기도 하였다 " 고 진술하였다 .

○ Defendant C

Defendant C submitted a written application to the Chuncheon District Court on December 14, 1979, which was at the time of the trial of the first instance, to the effect that “police officers have joined the 'pest punishment (Defendant A) and B (Defendant B) (the Committee of Gangwon-do) so they have to do so).” Defendant C written the written application that he did not take punishment and did not do so. The written statement of grounds for appeal submitted to this Court on February 27, 1980, which was written by the police investigators at the time of the investigation, even if there was no fact that he did not bring about a weak and corrosion to U in the name of the Defendant A. The most criminal facts were not written, and all written statements were prepared, as they were not used as a police adviser.

At the court of appeal, the appellate court stated that the police officer was absent from adviser at the time of investigation, and the police officer was present at the time of investigation by the prosecution, and that the police officer and the missing officer were present at the time of investigation by the prosecution, and that the police officer and the missing officer were present at the Chuncheon District Court when they received the first trial at the Seoul High Court or when they were tried at the second trial by the Seoul High Court.

과거사위원회 조사에서 " 1979. 6. 15. 새벽 6시경 출근 준비를 하고 있는데 경찰관 2명이 방으로 들어와서 뭐 좀 물어볼 것이 있다며 같이 가자고 하여 차량에 태워져 삼척경찰서로 연행되었다. 삼척경찰서에서 하루 조사받은 뒤 서울 남영동에 있는 대공분실에서 일주일 정도 조사받고 춘천 강원도경에서 20일 넘게 조사받은 뒤 송치되었다. 삼척경찰서에서는 형인 피고인 A을 잡아와 거꾸로 매달아 놓았다며 바른대로 말하지 않으면 자신도 매달아 놓겠다며 협박을 당했지만 구타를 당하지는 않았다. 그러나 서울 남영동 대공분실에서는 평생 자술서를 여러 번 쓰게 했는데 내용이 조금 틀리면 물이 가득 담긴 욕조에 머리를 집어넣고 물고문을 했다. 그리고는 똑바로 하지 않으면 여기에 고춧가루 등을 타서 담가 버리겠다고 협박을 하였다 "" 춘천 대공분실로 인수인계하는 과정에서 춘천 대공분실 수사관이 치안본부 수사관을 피의자로 오해해서 치안본부 수사관이 험악한 말로 욕을 하며 똑바로 하라는 말을 하였고, 그 때문에 대공분실 수사관이 기분이 나빴는지 조사실에 들어 가서는 나에게 살벌하게 욕을 하였던 기억이 난다. 그리고 진술서를 쓰라고 하는데 하지 않았다고 하자 때리기 시작했다. 손발로 온몸을 때리는 것은 다반사였고 각목으로 어깨를 때렸다. 손을 뒤로 묶어 놓고 어깨 너머로 침대 각목을 걸쳐 놓고 비틀었다. 젊은 수사관이 기분이 나쁘면 나에게 모포를 덮어씌우고는 마구 짓밟고 때려서 죽을지도 모른다는 엄청난 공포감이 들었다. 특히 피고인 A과 같이 T 강원도위원회를 구성하지 않았느냐며 자백하라고 하면서 엄청난 고문을 가했다. 춘천 대공분실에서 한 달 정도 조사받은 후 여관에 구금되어 불려 다니며 조사받을 때 여관에서 친척들을 보았는데 그 중 피고인 H가 깁스한 것을 보았다 " 검찰 조사에 대하여는 " 송치되기 전 검사에게 조사를 받았는데 검사를 만나서 북한을 찬양한 적 없다고 말하자 검사가 내 뒤에 있던 경찰들에게 ' 이 사람뭐야 ? 조사를 뭐 이렇게 했어 ? 데려가 ' 라고 하자 경찰들이 대공분실 조사실로 나를 데리고 들어가 약 20분간 뺨을 때리고 바닥에 업어 치고 발로 밟고 주먹으로 때리고 하였다. 그날 정말 죽는 줄 알았다. 경찰관이 ' 휴가를 나왔으면 피고인 F의 집을 방문하여 U을 만났을 것이고 U이 동해경비사령부 등에 관하여 물어보면 답을 했을 것이 아니냐 ' 며 구타를 해서 허위 자백을 하였을 뿐 이와 같은 사실이 없다. 또한 주월한국군 사령본부에서 근무한 사실을 이야기했더니 그럼 U이 월남에 대해 질문하면 답했을 것이 아니냐며 그렇게 자백을 하라고 구타를 하여 할 수 없이 허위로 인정하였다. 실제로 판결문에 기재된 시기에 피고인 F의 집을 방문하거나 U, 간첩 R, S를 만난 적도 없다 " 고 진술하였다 .

○ Defendant D

피고인 D는 과거사위원회 조사에서 " 1979. 6. 14. 오전 10시쯤 외출 했다가 집에 왔는데 낯선 사람들이 집 입구에서 들어가지 못하게 했다. 내가 ' 내 집인데 왜 못 들어가게 하느냐 ' 고 하자 누구냐고 물어 ( 피고인 A의 ) 큰 아들이라고 했더니 아무 설명 없이 바로 마당에서 체포하였다. 그 후 수사관 10명 정도가 1시간 정도 집을 샅샅이 뒤지는 동안 마루에 앉아 있었는데, 아버지인 피고인 A은 수갑을 찬 채 사랑방에 앉아 있는 것을 보았다. 그리고 바로 차에 태워져 삼척경찰서로 연행되어 하루 조사받은 뒤 서울 남영동 치안본부에서 일주일 정도 조사받고, 춘천 강원도경 대공분실에서 한 달 정도 더 조사를 받은 뒤 송치된 것 같다 "" 서울 남영동 치안본부에서 조사받을 때 잠을 제대로 자지 못하게 해서 정신이 항상 몽롱한 상태였다. 수사관들이 큰 아버지인 U으로부터 북한이 좋다 등의 이야기를 들었다는 내용의 쪽지를 보여주며 그대로 쓰라고 해서 그런 사실이 없다고 하자 쪽지를 치우더니 때리기 시작했다. 땅바닥에 꿇어앉게 하더니 수사관이 내 허벅지를 밟고 올라섰다. 그리고 구둣발로 걷어차서 쓰러지면 등을 밟고 올라섰다. 조사실에 있던 야전침대에서 봉을 꺼내더니 닥치는 대로 때려서 허벅지가 다 터지고 옆 구리에도 상처가 났다. 그렇게 반나절을 계속 맞았다. 너무 괴로워서 책상 밑으로 도망갔는데 수사관들이 발로 걷어찼다. 그러더니 수사관 셋이 들어와 물고문을 하였다 "" 너희 아버지 ( 피고인 A ) 도 전기고문을 당하고 있다며 너도 시키는 대로 하지 않으면 전기고문을 하겠다고 협박을 하였다. 고문을 심하게 당해 부인하지 못하고 쪽지 내용대로 베껴 쓰기를 몇 번 반복하고, 그것을 외워 쓰지 못하면 또 때리기 시작했다. 피고인 A에게 송수신하는 방법을 배우지 않았냐고 해서 부인했더니 인정해야만 아버지도 살 수 있다고 하고, 아버지 비명소리가 들려와 수사관이 시키는 대로 인정하였다. 춘천 강원도경으로 이동해 조사받을 때에도 진술서를 작성하다가 틀리거나 하면 수사관들이 손, 발로 구타를 하였다. 유치장에서 신경성고혈압 ( 당시 나이 23세 ) 이라는 병명이 나와서 수사관이 병원에 데리고 가서 주사만 맞혀주고 약 가지고 바로 유치장으로 온 적이 있다. 검찰 조사 시에도 처음에는 부인했더니 검사가 ' 지금까지 이렇게 진술했는데 왜 여기서 부인하냐 ' 고 하자 옆에 있던 수사관이 손으로 얼굴을 때리고 발길질을 해서 허위사실을 인정할 수밖에 없었다. 수사관들이 어디서 조사를 받건, 재판을 할 때건 지금 여기서 ( 남영동 ) 한 대로 해야지 너의 아버지 ( 피고인 A ) 가 살수 있다고 해서 그런 줄로만 알았다. 이후에 사실을 밝히려고 시도해도 그때마다 구타를 당해서 재판 때 그런 사실을 말했다가는 다시 끌려갈까 겁이 났다. 무엇보다 재판에서도 경찰에서 조사받은 대로 해야 아버지 ( 피고인 A ) 가 산다고 해서 그 말만 믿었다 " 고 진술하였다 .

○ Defendant E

피고인 E은 과거사위원회 조사에서 " 1979. 6. 15. 은 당시 근무하던 DO 주식회사의 창립기념일이었다. 그날 새벽에 자고 있는데 수사관 4 ~ 5명이 집에 들어와 자신을 연행하였다. 체포영장은 없었고 무슨 일이냐고 물어보니 조용히 하라고 하여 영문도 모른 채 삼척경찰서로 연행되었다. 삼척경찰서, 서울 남영동 대공분실, 춘천 강원도경에서 한 달 이상 조사받은 뒤 송치되었다 "" 삼척경찰서에서 조사받을 때 U과의 관계에 대해 알지 못한다고 하자 수사관이 혁대를 풀어서 얼굴을 때렸고, 그로 인해 입술이 찢어져 피가 났다. 그리고 진술을 제대로 하지 않는다며 등과 머리를 때렸다. 남영동 치안본부에서는 욕조에 장작을 올려놓고 꿇어앉게 하더니 각목으로 때렸다. U과 간첩한 내용을 자백하라며 계속 구타하였는데, 얼굴에서 피가 나자 구타를 멈추었다. 춘천 강원도경에서도 비슷한 내용으로 조사를 받으며 손, 발, 각목으로 구타를 당했고, 잠도 제대로 재워주지 않아 정신이 몽롱한 상태였다. 당시 노조활동을 하고 있었는데 이와 관련해 피고인 A에게 정보를 제공했다고 범죄사실을 조작하려고 해서 부인하자 수사관이 나를 의자에 묶은 후 손으로 돌리는 발전기와 전기선을 가져와 양쪽 손가락에 선을 연결한 뒤 삐삐전화기 같은 발전기를 돌려 정신을 잃었다. 이런 전기고문을 두 번 정도 당했다 "" 군사, 산업상 기밀제보와 관련하여 수사관들이 고문으로 조작한 것이다. 수사관들이 군부대시설 알고 있는 것을 적으라고 해서 적어내자 군부대시설을 탐지한 것으로 조작했고, DO에 대해 아는 대로 적으라고 해서 수사관들에게 제출하면 또 간첩한 것으로 조작했다. 피고인 A과 형제지간이라 오가다 만나면 그냥 요즘 어떻게 지내냐 하면서 신변잡기에 대해 이야기한 것을 가지고 수사관들이 간첩한 것으로 조작하였다. 당시 수사관들은 DO 노조지부장을 역임했던 ( 나의 ) 신분을 이용해 어떻게 해서든 간첩으로 만들려고 갖은 혈안이 되어 있었다. 경찰에서 모진 고문을 당하고 검찰에서 수사관이 배석하고 공판에도 방청석에 있어서 범죄사실이 조작되었다고 밝히지 .

The statements were made by the lower court.

○ Defendant F

On September 18, 1979, Defendant F made a false statement at the first trial date of this court that “I would have made the police know of the fact that there was a counter-espionage by divulging military secrets,” and on December 6, 1979, Defendant F made a false statement at the second trial of this court that “I would not divulge military secrets, but did not know that I would not know of the fact.”

○ Defendant G

On September 18, 1979, Defendant G stated “no fact” to the prosecutor’s inquiry regarding the detection of military secrets during the first trial of this court on September 18, 1979. Such entry was made by the person entering the protocol. On December 6, 1979, the date of the second trial of December 6, 1979, there was no fact of either joining the North Korean Labor Party or either disclosing military secrets or publicizing that North Korea is good, and the entry in the system was consistent with that of the first trial of this court, but it did not appear to have taken place.

In addition, on February 26, 1980, the statement of reasons for appeal that was submitted to this court was stated in the statement of reasons for appeal that "it did not perform any act stated in the facts charged." On the part that reported military secrets, it is about 15 meters to ask about how the distance from the part that received the statement of reasons for appeal would exist, and there are several lawsuits, and this fact was also stated that there was one initial claim in the king and king-ri, and that the report was made to the espionage. The statement that the protocol was made to the public prosecutor's office, which was known as the facts charged, that the fact was known at the time when the document was omitted, and that if we again received the protocol, it was made to the public prosecutor's office, which was frighten, to the effect that the report was made to the effect that the report was made.

○ Defendant H

On December 6, 1979, at the second trial of this court, Defendant H consistently denied the part that he joined a shipbuilding labor party, or made a sponser to know what he is a sponsor, and that he is good to North Korea. The sponsored upon the request for a hidden delivery, and that he committed a sponsing act by providing information on military secrets by making a false statement. Defendant H consistently denied the part of his sponsoring that he was for the purpose of mutual aid and was irrelevant to North Korea’s order. Defendant F at the request of Defendant F, only recognized the fact that he stored a gun at the request of Defendant F.

Co-defendant J was committed on June 21, 1979 in the investigation of the past committee of the committee of co-defendant J, "C was committed on June 21, 1979 to the Samyang Police Station criminal charge at the Seoul Young Military Education Insurance Office. B left the police station before one week prior to the same day. Co-defendant J was able to say that the East B was born to the police. There was only a fluorative fluoral fluor, and all fluoral fluors were born to work at the Seoul High School and the office.

남영동 치안본부에서 1, 2일 정도 조사받고, 춘천의 강원도경에서 한 달 간 조사받은 뒤 송치되었다. 서울 남영동에서 수사관이 나에게 ' 피고인 A을 조사했는데 ( 네가 ) 다대포에 다녀온 적이 있다고 말을 했다 ' 고 해서 그런 적 없다고 하니까 신발을 벗어 때리며 물고문, 전기고문을 하겠다고 해서 무서워서 무조건 갔다 왔다고 했다. 다녀왔다고는 했으나 뭘 타고 갔는지 어디서 내렸는지 알 수가 없어서 수사관에게 사실은 간 적이 없다고 진술을 번복하자 또 때렸다 "" 서울 남영동 치안본부에서 춘천 대공분실로 이동할 때 수사관의 감시하에 친척, 가족들과 함께 이동했는데 피고인 A이 너무 괴롭다며 빨리 죽고 싶다고 말을 했다. 춘천 강원도경에서 조사받을 때 ( 내가 ) 김대중을 지지한다고 했다며 수사관들이 구두를 벗어서 머리, 얼굴, 손등을 내리쳤다. 수사관이 내가 사진을 찍어서 간첩을 가져다주었다고 해서 아니라고 하자 또 구타를 하면서 인정하지 않으면 막대기로 가슴이나 성기를 찌르겠다며 협박을 하였다. 여관에서 조사받을 때 삼촌인 피고인 H가 깁스를 하고 여관으로 들어오기에 무심코 ' 많이 맞으셨어요 ' 라고 물었더니 삼촌이 ' 많이 맞았다 ' 라고 했다. 수사관이 ' 내일은 검사에게 조사를 받으러 가는데 여기서 조사받은 대로 시인을 해야 한다. 그렇지 않으면 또 고문을 당할 것이다. 법정에 가서도 여기서 조사받은 대로 다 시인해야지, 그렇지 않으면 괘씸죄로 더 큰 형량을 받을 것이다 ' 라고 했다. 검사에게 조사받는 내내 수사관이 옆에 서 있어서 검사 질문에 무조건 인정하는 답을 해야만 했다 " 고 진술하였다 .

Co-Defendant 1

In the investigation of the past committee, Co-Defendant A, the husband, laid down a pesticide in the field of Bouri on June 14, 1979, and the defendant A, the husband, was found to have laid down a house. In addition, the investigator was going back to the house. The investigator was going back to the house without any explanation. The investigator was going back to the village upper side of the village without any explanation, and turned back to the cell of the police station. The police station was called "the woman was sent after being investigated at the Hongcheon Police Station Protection Office," and it was sent to the large public room. The same was "The same as the woman was sent after being investigated at the Hancheon Police Station Protection Office." The investigator did not go to the house or sublet but did not locked. Even if the investigator was not investigated, he did not come up only to be able to come up with the chair.

There was no mental mind. However, her husband (Defendant A) or her husband (Defendant D) made a statement without any reason. Defendant A and D made a statement without any reason. Defendant A and her investigator made a statement. When being investigated by the three police stations, her investigator made intimidation that her husband or her husband would be subject to death penalty but her husband or her child would be subject to death penalty if her husband or her child would be subject to death penalty. In the investigation conducted by the three police stations, her husband or her court did not think that her husband or her husband would be subject to death penalty.

OAA

AA appeared as a witness in the appellate court, and stated that "I will knee kne kne kne in the advisory room," and "I would kne kne kne kne," and "I already speak, so I made a statement as "I will kne kne kne kne".

OW

BW was present as a witness in the court of first instance in the court of first instance, and “The statement was made, but there was no fact that “the fact was made by the Defendant C,” in the investigation of the past committee. When the police was investigated at the time, the investigator did so because he would have to resign from the party headquarters, and the attendance at the court was in contact with the police and was present as a witness. Until the prosecution or the public trial, the investigator was required to make a statement as stated by the police. Unless this, there was no other reason to make a statement that is not a fact that “the police must undergo a police investigation.” The police was kept in the public trial at the time, and that there was no disadvantage to the police, but a statement that is not a fact that is not the same.

“The statement was made.”

OCX

In the investigation of the past history committee, the CX, in which Co-Defendant J’s speech to praise North Korea, stated that “I would not see North Korea from J.” The investigator stated that “I would tell North Korea,” while the investigator said as above, I would like to see that I would like to see the bottom of the steel monet, I would like to see, and would like to make a false statement.”

OJ, AK, and AH, who told the North Korea from AJ, AK, and AH Defendant D, stated in the investigation of the past history committee that “In response to the statement made by the investigator as D by presenting the parts stated by D. If the investigator is consistent, there is no end of the investigation.” Moreover, the investigation is complete as D has to be conducted. The investigation is complete. All the words not memory are not stated by the investigator’s coercion, but are not stated by the investigator’s coercion, and even at the time of the investigation by the prosecution, the police did not deny the statement.

C) According to Defendant H’s physical appraisal report prepared at the time of admission into Chuncheon prison on September 9, 1979, the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against the Defendants and co-defendants to the effect that the determination on individual evidence is made on the right side of H’s body, i.e., “multi-faced bucks,” among H’s body. 2) The prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against the Defendants and co-defendants, to the effect that each prosecution’s interrogation protocol against the Defendants and co-defendants is admitted for the following reasons, and thus, it is not admissible.

The purport of denying the admissibility of evidence of a false statement is to prevent in advance that the statement made under a dangerous condition that causes or is likely to cause a false statement from being inconsistent with the substantive truth, and that it is likely to cause misjudgments, and that it infringes on the fundamental human rights of a person who has made a statement, leaving the truth. Thus, when there is a dispute over the voluntariness, a prosecutor must prove that it is reasonable and specific to suspect the voluntariness, rather than the defendant, and if the prosecutor fails to prove that the question about the voluntartariness is eliminated, the evidence of the statement shall be denied. In addition, when there is any circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the statement in the record, the court shall ex officio investigate whether it is voluntartariness, and even if the defendant consented to the voluntartariness evidence that is not admissible as evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7900, Nov. 23, 2006).

Although the defendant was forced to make a confession before the prosecutor, there was no coercion.

Even if the prosecutor made a confession without voluntariness due to harsh acts, such as adviser, at an investigative agency before the prosecutor, and even at the investigation stage, if the prosecutor continued to make a confession of the same contents during the same investigation stage, confession before the prosecutor shall be deemed to be a confession without voluntariness (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2409 delivered on November 24, 192).

The following facts are acknowledged based on the above facts: ① the Defendants and co-defendants were illegally arrested and detained for a long time after illegal arrest at the police station, etc. ② The investigation by police investigators seems to have been widely conducted in the course of the investigation; ③ the prosecutor’s investigation by the Defendants and co-defendants also made intimidation to the effect that if the police officers who made the above cruel act did not make a confession while creating a threatening atmosphere, it would be impossible for other defendants in family relations, or if they re-inform the confession statement, they again received the statements of the intent of confession at the prosecutor’s office after taking full account of suspicion, intimidation, interview, etc. widely made in the police investigation process against the Defendants and co-defendants, and there is a reason to suspect that not only the Defendants and co-defendants’ statements but also the statements from the prosecutor’s office were made in the absence of voluntariness, and the prosecutor fails to prove the intent of voluntariness and thus, the part is inadmissible.

B) Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants and co-defendants, written statements or statements prepared by the Defendants and co-defendants in the police

Since the defendants denies the contents of each protocol of interrogation of the police and each written statement or written statement prepared by the police against the defendants and co-defendants in this court, they are not admissible in accordance with Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C) Prosecutions and police statements for the defendant and those who are not co-defendants, and statements or statements prepared by them

The above evidence is inadmissible in accordance with Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendants did not agree to use it as evidence, and it is proved by the statement of the person making the original statement or the authenticity of its formation was not proven by the statement of the person making the original statement.

D) As the above evidence in the seizure protocol and the inspection protocol prepared by the police did not consent to the defendants being admitted as evidence, and the authenticity of its formation was not proven by the testimony of the maker, it is inadmissible under Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

E) In order to guarantee the fundamental human rights of evidence attached, the normative power of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides specific standards for the procedures of seizure and search so that the Constitution that has declared the basis of due process regarding seizure and search and the warrant requirement can be harmoniously realized through the establishment of substantial truth and the protection of the rights of individuals, should be maintained. As such, the normative power of the Criminal Procedure Act, which does not follow the procedures prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, shall not be considered as evidence for conviction in principle, since the secondary evidence obtained based on the above does not follow the lawful procedures prepared to guarantee fundamental human rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do3061, Nov. 15, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1437, Mar. 12, 2009).

According to the records, on June 14, 1979, the judicial police officer arrested Defendant A without a warrant, searched his house at will, and searched 63 points, such as rocketing pistols, and the judicial police officer searched 63 points, according to the statement of Defendant H on June 17, 1979. The judicial police officer seized 6 points, such as North Korean tampols, after searching tamps at the back of the house according to the statement of Defendant H on June 17, 1979. The judicial police officer was seized upon voluntary presentation of 1 point of radio posters owned by Defendant B at the house of Defendant F on June 17, 1979. The fact that Defendant F issued 18 points, including Defendant F’s copis, from Defendant F’s front and rear rifle, and the fact that the judicial police officer seized 197 points, such as the police officer’s seizure or submission of the warrant after July 10, 1979.

According to this, it does not constitute legitimate arrest of a flagrant offender or an emergency arrest, and seizure and search are conducted without a warrant at a place where the crime is committed or in a place where it cannot be seen as a place immediately after the crime is committed, and even thereafter, seizure and search are not issued without delay within a lawful period of time. As such, seizure and search conducted in violation of the warrant principle under the Criminal Procedure Act, or based on it, the procedural violation constitutes an infringement of the substantive contents of due process. Thus, it is not admissible under Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15258, Nov. 15, 2012).

F) Each of the above evidence before and after Defendant A and F is about Defendant A and F’s past records, and it is insufficient to find Defendant A and F guilty of each of the instant facts charged.

D. The defendants and co-defendant's legal statement

The circumstances where the defendant made a confession without voluntariness at an investigative agency due to cruel acts, such as adviser, etc., and the circumstances leading up to the statement that was led to the confession in court and the circumstances leading up to the statement that led to the confession were taken into account and the reason for suspecting the voluntariness of the confession was observed. If the prosecutor fails to prove his/her intention to eliminate his/her voluntariness, his/her statement in court is inadmissible (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2818, Jan. 27, 20

According to the records, the defendants and co-defendants may recognize the whole or partial confession of the facts charged of this case, but as seen above, the defendants and co-defendants appear to have made a wide range of adviser and cruel act with the illegal confinement for a long time and made a false confession. At the prosecutor's investigation on them, the prosecutor's office made intimidation to the effect that if a police officer who committed cruel act does not make a confession while creating a threatening atmosphere, he would not make another defendant in a family relationship. In the event that the confession statement is reversed, the defendant cannot make a false confession by committing cruel act, such as tata, etc., and the police officer who conducted an investigation at the court's trial did not encourage fear by attending the court room. In full view of the above, the statements made by the defendants and co-defendants also in the court room have reasons to suspect voluntariness, and the prosecutor did not prove that there was no proof to eliminate the doubts of voluntariness.

(e) Legal statement of witness BW, AX, and Y;

According to the records, BW, AX, andY appeared as a witness on the second day of December 6, 1979, and BW appeared as a witness on the second day of this court. B, on June 1975, 1975, as stated in the facts charged against Defendant C, the term “North Korea at around 10:00, on the first day of June 1975, 1975, means “the crym" means “the crym, while the crym is able to live in South Korea, while the crym is being treated free of charge for the crym.” In relation to the facts charged against Defendant C, “AX crym: 13:00, on the last day of May 1978, 1978, the crym: 13:00,000 crym for the crym of the crym of the crym of the crym of the crym.

However, as seen earlier, in the investigation of the past committee, BW was unable to make a statement that is not a fact, i.e., ① “the fact was,” in the investigation of the past committee, because, even though there was no fact that there was a speech from Defendant C that obsing North Korea, at the time, the investigator would have retired from the police, and so, the investigator would have used it as such. The court appearance was also in contact with the police and was present as a witness, and the investigator before the prosecution or the public trial was present at the police. If so, the police did not have to undergo the police investigation.” At the public trial, BW made a statement that is not the same as the fact that there was no disadvantage for Defendant C, ② CX, which stated that Defendant D would have obsing North Korea from Defendant D, and that Defendant D’s testimony and testimony were not admissible in the process of investigation, and Defendant D’s testimony and testimony were not admissible as evidence, and Defendant D’s testimony and testimony were not admissible in the process of investigation.

F. Sub-committee

As seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor cannot be used as evidence because it is inadmissible as evidence, or by itself is insufficient to prove the facts charged in the instant case, and the defendants, co-defendants and witnesses' statements in the court cannot be admitted as seen earlier and there is no other obvious evidence to prove the facts charged in the instant case.

4. Conclusion

Since the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, each of the Defendants is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Lee Lee-hee

Judges Lee Jin-jin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.