B. Whether the act of diving or escape from an area which is not controlled by an anti-government organization violates Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act

B. It is clear that the crime of diving or escape under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act does not constitute an element of escape from an area under the control of an anti-government organization, in light of the language and text of the provision. Thus, even in the case of escape or escape from an area which is not under the control of an anti-government organization, if a member of an anti-government organization is subject to an order from an anti-government organization, or if a member of an anti-government organization was diving or escape under the intention of accomplishment of its purpose, it constitutes a crime of diving or escape under the provision of the above Act.

55 days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. As to the assertion of violation of law:

(1) The evidence of confessions is sufficient to acknowledge that the confessions of the defendant are not processed, but true, even though it is not related to all the facts constituting the crime. Such evidence is sufficient to prove that the confessions of the defendant are true, not only direct evidence, but also circumstantial or indirect evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do432 delivered on May 26, 1987). According to the records, the defendant meetings with the defendant as stated in the bill of indictment knowing that the non-indicted mother leader, whose arguments are pointed out by the prosecutor, is a member of the North Korean National Assembly, and gives and receives money from the defendant, and he again goes out to Korea under the order of his son, and takes counter-espionage and receives money from his son, and he is not guilty of the facts charged in violation of the rules of evidence, and the court below has no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the confessions of the defendant as to the confessions of the defendant and the evidence of the non-indicted 1 as a whole, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the evidence of the court below.

(2) It is clear that the crime of diving or escape under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act does not constitute an element of escape from an area under the control of an anti-government organization. Thus, even in the case of escape from Japan which is not under the control of an anti-government organization, or escape from Japan, if a member of an anti-government organization is subject to an order from a member of an anti-government organization, or if a member of an anti-government organization goes out or escaped from Japan under the intention of accomplishing its purpose, it constitutes a crime of diving or escape under the above Article (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do808 delivered on July 22, 1986). In the same purport, the court below's decision that each of the defendants' decisions in the same purport is applied to the crime of diving or escape under the above Article, and it is just in the court below's decision that the defendant applied to the defendant, who is not a member of an anti-government organization, and there is no possibility for the defendant to expect to commit this case, all of the arguments are without merit.

(3) According to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the court of appeals provides that the facts and evidence recorded in the judgment of the court of first instance may be quoted, the court of first instance shall not be deemed to have committed a crime against the defendant, which the court of first instance decided in accordance with the above provision, and there is a brut of not disclosing the summary of the evidence and the measures citing the summary of the evidence, or there is no illegality of omission of judgment

2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing:

In light of the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case and the nature and result of the crime of this case, the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too excessive and unfair even after considering all the circumstances leading to the sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)