[반공법위반][집18(2)형,001]
If the Defendant purchased a book in the field of hero that he knows that it would not sell it to others, and he would have been aware that the act of the person who sold the book would benefit North Korea, and if the book was transported to the Defendant on the route of the public policy, the crime of non-disclosure and the crime of carrying the book in custody is established.
If the Defendant purchased a book with the knowledge that the book would not be sold to others, or if he/she knew that the book would not be sold to others, he/she would have been aware that the act of the seller of the book would be detrimental to North Korea, and thus, it would be the crime of not notifying the seller, and if he/she did not keep the book or transported it to the defendant, it would be the crime of keeping and transporting representations as referred to in Article 4 of the Antipublic Law.
Article 8 of the Antipublic Law, Article 4(1) of the Antipublic Law, Article 4(2) of the Antipublic Law
Defendant
Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No421 delivered on December 24, 1968, including Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No421 delivered on December 24, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the suspect examination report on the defendant of the prosecutor's protocol who consented to the defendant as evidence in the court of first instance, the defendant purchased the written indictment from hero that he wanted to read it to the person who is aware that he would not sell it to others. Thus, the defendant's act of the person who was not aware of the fact that the defendant's act of the person who was not aware of it would benefit an anti-government organization. Therefore, if he kept these books or transported them to the defendant before the court of first instance, it can not be denied the purpose of the act that would benefit anti-government organization on the ground that the books were merely to leave them to his friendship. Thus, the court below's decision is justified in interpreting Article 8 (1) 4 of the Act as a crime of non-disclosure and an anti-government organization's unlawful interpretation and application of the law.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)