(b) The relationship of legal application based on whether the knowledge of military secrets divulged to an enemy country is related to his/her duties;

C. Concept of a single comprehensive crime

(d) the meaning of military secrets in the crime of espionage;

(b) In a case where a person who has learned of military secrets in connection with his duties discloses such secrets to an enemy country, Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act is applicable, and Article 99 of the Criminal Act is applicable in a case where he discloses such military secrets to an enemy country regardless of his duties.

C. The so-called a so-called blanket crime is a single crime, in general, because several acts that exist separately, meet the relevant elements of a single crime, and thus, such acts are naturally committed, absorbing, or ex post facto, or an unlawful act is committed, with considerable time to a considerable extent, and thus, a single crime is not established, and the concept of a single crime is different from the crime of an excessive form, in this regard.

D. Military secrets in the crime of espionage include not only pure military secrets, but also all military secrets in all fields of the nation, such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc. which are directly connected with military operations and are related to the performance of military operations, and thus are informed to the enemy country, and thus, they include all military secrets at a disadvantage in the Republic of Korea. Even if such secrets are easily seen and easily recognizable to the general public, if they were recruited for the purpose of informing the enemy country of them, the crime of espionage is established. The detection, recruited secrets are extremely difficult to detect, detect, detect, and gather them because they are very important and very difficult to collect.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

(1) Ground of appeal No. 1

(b) the Act;

Article 2 of the former National Security Act and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act are established through detection and collection of any confidential information in all fields of politics, economy, society, culture, etc. which is disadvantageous to the Republic of Korea by informing the enemy country as well as the enemy country. In a case where a person who becomes aware of such confidential information in connection with his duties discloses it to the enemy country, the crime under Article 98 (2) of the same Act is established, and the crime under Article 98 (2) of the same Act is not committed, and regardless of his duties, if he discloses such confidential information to the enemy country, the crime under Article 99 of the same Act is established, and the crime under Article 99 of the same Act is established.

Therefore, the crime of espionage is not a separate crime, even if the crime of espionage was committed by detecting and collecting the above secrets on behalf of the enemy country, and then by informing the enemy country of such detection and collected secrets thereafter, it is not a separate crime.

The so-called a so-called blanket one crime is a crime that generally exists in several acts that meet the relevant constituent elements once, and is naturally a single crime. Since several acts are absorbed or ex post facto, or the illegal state has expired considerably to the extent of time, the concept of a separate crime is different from one crime, as well as the crime of an excessive shape.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the defendant's act of detecting, collecting, and informing and divulging national secrets in order to inform the North Korean public organizations which are anti-government organizations, constitutes a separate crime, and held that the defendant committed the act of detecting, collecting, and divulging it separately and included the act of detecting, and divulging it, and held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to comprehensive crimes under Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 2 of the former National Security Act (or Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act) and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act (or Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act), and thereby maintaining the first instance court's decision for the same reason as the first head was committed, it is obvious that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the first instance court's decision, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 2 and No. 1 of the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below based on the records are sufficient to find and find facts that the defendant discovered and collected national secrets in order to inform the members of the North Korean Industrial Complex group, and it cannot be said that there was any violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules of facts or any violation of the rules of facts. The military secrets in the espionage crime include not only pure military secrets, but also all military secrets in all fields of the country, such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc. which are directly connected with military power and are related to military operations, and thus, military secrets are informed to the enemy country in Korea. Even if such secrets are easily seen and easily known to the general public, if collected for the purpose of informing the enemy country of them, such secrets are established. Thus, if a espionage crime is established, such detection, collection should be an important national secret, and it is extremely difficult to detect, detect and collect them underground or warehouse, and there is no reasonable ground to interpret it as a small and independent precedent.

(3) The grounds of appeal No. 3, the National Security Act was enacted to regulate anti-state activities which may endanger the national security, thereby securing the national security, survival and freedom of citizens (former National Security Act also applies to the same). However, if a member of this anti-government organization or a person who was ordered by it as an anti-government organization for the purpose of representing the Government or disturbing the State, committed an anti-government organization for the purpose of fulfilling its purpose under Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of counter-espionage under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act, Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the former National Security Act, Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act is established. Accordingly, the first instance court's measure which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which affirmed the establishment of a counter-espionage crime against the defendant is justifiable in misunderstanding the legal principles, thereby recognizing the fact wrong, and there is no reason for appeal.

2. Next, Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal are examined.

If evidence is collected at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in accordance with the records of the case of this case, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant in the original judgment, and it cannot be said that there is any error of law in the misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing,

3. Accordingly, Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are without merit, but the first point is well-grounded, and the facts charged against the Defendant are prosecuted by concurrent crimes. Thus, without examining the Defendant’s counsel’s counsel’s leaption and each of the grounds of appeal on the same offense, the judgment of the lower court against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)