Violation of the Act on the Force and the National Security Act (Provision of Convenience)

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed.

Where there exist several orders of the judgment, such as partial conviction and partial acquittal of a case prosecuted at the same time for concurrent crimes, the part included in the relevant one order may be separately appealed from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive. As such, where only the prosecutor appealed on the part of the judgment of the first instance that acquitted or partially acquitted, the part of the judgment of conviction which was not appealed by the defendant and the prosecutor has become final and conclusive as the expiration of the appeal period, and the part of the judgment of conviction which was pending in the appellate trial is not prosecuted against the part of the judgment of innocence, and accordingly, the part of the judgment of acquittal shall be reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010).

According to the records, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the violation of the Act on Fraud and Electronic Financial Transactions among the facts charged in the case of this case, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of six months, and sentenced the defendant not guilty of each of the facts charged in the violation of the National Security Act and the violation of the National Security Act (the judgment of the court below stated "not guilty of the violation of the National Security Act among the facts charged in the case of this case." However, considering the reasons for the judgment, it seems that the judgment is clearly erroneous.

Therefore, since only a prosecutor filed an appeal against the acquittal portion, the part on fraud and violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the judgment below was separated and finalized with the appeal period. Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the portion on acquittal portion by a prosecutor among the judgment below.

2. The gist of grounds for appeal (not guilty part);

A. Violation of the National Security Act (Influence and escape)

The Defendant’s act of entering the area under the control of North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, is in danger of endangering the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order, and as long as the Defendant had sufficiently known that such act may cause harm to the free democracy system of the Republic of Korea as a result of such act, it shall be punished under Article 6(1) of the National Security Act regardless of the motive of the individual act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which

B. Violation of the National Security Act (Offer of Convenience)

Although the defendant's act of receiving money and valuables from the central authority of the Joseon Labor Party in North Korea is in danger of undermining the existence and security of the Republic of Korea or democratic fundamental order, as long as the defendant was aware of the possibility of such danger, the defendant should be punished pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the National Security Act regardless of whether he/she intended to act in concert with the North Korean system. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

3. Ex officio determination

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the prosecutor, ex officio, maintains the previous facts charged about the violation of the National Security Act (Influence and escape) among the non-guilty portion for the first time in the trial, and applies for changes in the indictment to the contents that add the criminal facts of the violation of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act to the criminal facts of the violation of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, "Article 27 (1) 1 and Article 9 (1) of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act" to the criminal facts of the violation of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act as the preliminary charges, and since this court permitted this, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the violation of the National Security Act (influence and escape) is no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the portion not guilty, including the above part, is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined as follows.

4. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination on each violation of the National Security Act (Influence and escape)

1) The court below, as to the facts charged in this part of the main facts charged in the 20th to 12th page of the judgment of the court below (the facts charged in the first instance court) on the 14th page 9 to 15th page 2, and 13 to 16th page 15 of the judgment of the court in detail on the legal principles concerning "locked entry and escape" under the National Security Act (the relevant legal principles). According to the evidence in this part of the facts charged, it is hard to view that the defendant was not guilty of the facts charged in the above part of the court below where there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant's act constitutes a free democracy's fundamental order or a free democracy's fundamental order unless there is any other evidence to prove that the defendant's act constitutes a crime under the same part of the court below's main facts charged.

2) In order for a crime of diving under Article 6(2) of the National Security Act to be established, the intent and purpose should be recognized. In order for the crime of escape under Article 6(2) of the same Act to be established, the intent and purpose of consultation should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do2323, Jan. 22, 1985). Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of such legal principles, closely comparing the reasoning of the judgment in light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it does not err by misapprehending the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Prosecutor’s allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Judgment on the violation of the National Security Act (Provision of Convenience)

1) The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant's above act constitutes a case where it is hard to view that the defendant's act constitutes an obvious danger to the national existence and security or democratic fundamental order under the National Security Act, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, on the grounds that the defendant's act constitutes a case where the defendant's act was arrested by a security guard as stated in this part of the facts charged. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it was not proven that he had delivered money and valuables to the central leader of the North Korean Labor Party to the North Korean Labor Party for the purpose of release. However, the court below found that the defendant's own act was delivered money and valuables to the North Korean leader of the North Korean Labor Party to return to North Korea with the democratic basic order as North Korea, in order to return to North Korea by delivering money and valuables to the leader of the North Korean Labor Party to North Korea.

2) Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the above part of the judgment of the court below is again decided as follows. Since the prosecutor's appeal on the remaining part of the judgment of the court below is without merit, the prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Judgment which is used again for the violation of the National Security Act (Infilite and escape)]

Criminal history (Violation of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act: Preliminary charges)

After settling in the Republic of Korea, the Defendant came to know that he works for NEs, who are North Korean defectors, and that he would be able to escape from North Korea in return for the payment from North Korean defectors who settled in the Republic of Korea, and that he had been living in the border area of the past China and exceeded two thousands of course from time to time to time in order to take advantage of the past experience of living in the border area of China, the Defendant, without the approval of the Minister of Unification, went to North Korea through two thousands of lectures, went back to North Korea through the method of going back to and depart from North Korea, and brought up the revenue by receiving the payment, and sought cooperation from NEs in the border of China, which was known to him while taking advantage of the smuggling, and sought cooperation from P, Q, R, S, etc. to help North Korea inside North Korea.

1. Primary North Korea without permission;

On May 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of T, U, and V that North Korean defectors would return to North Korea, and agreed to receive the cost of T, X, Y, and U’s family Z, AAB, through the cooperation of China and North Korea, after entering China with the aid of the cooperation of China and North Korea, the Defendant transferred T, X, Y, and U’s family Z, AA, and V’s mother AB into China to China, and made them enter the Republic of Korea through a third country.

On May 30, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, sent six persons requested P and R to depart from North Korea, who are cooperations in North Korea, to take the house of another cooperations S in Hong-gun Hong-gun AC, and P and R came to know on May 30, 201 that they arrive at the house of S.

On May 30, 2011, the Defendant boarded the aircraft at the Incheon National Security Service port and left the Republic of China, and stayed in the Republic of China for two days at the office of the Organization located in the Republic of Korea, a cooperative in China. On June 1, 201, the Defendant: (a) checked the status of surveillance of the North Korean National Security Service, on board the motor vehicle provided by the O around the first half of the Han River-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon of the Republic of Korea; (b) confirmed the status of surveillance of the North Korean National Security

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P 및 탈북 대상자 6명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 협조 대가로 중국 인민폐 3만 원(약 500만 원)과 중국산 휴대전화 3개를 넘겨 주고, 경비가 소홀해지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 6명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 6. 2. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 6명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

The defendant, as a resident of the Republic of Korea, visited North Korea without the approval of the Minister of Unification.

2. Second North Korea without permission;

On July 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of North Korean defectors AD and V that he/she wishes to pay for the friendship that he/she lives in North Korea, with the aid of the cooperations of China and North Korea, and then entered China through the cooperations of China, followed AD's family AE, E and V moving into China, and promised to allow them to enter the Republic of Korea through a third country, and to receive the expenses.

On July 12, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, sent three persons requested P and R to depart from North Korea to the house of S located in Hong-gun Hong-gun Hong-gun, Hong-gun. P and R were known by telephone that the Defendant arrived at the house of S, which is a North Korean partner of P and R.

On July 12, 2011, the Defendant: (a) boarded the aircraft at the Incheon State Provision port; (b) stayed from the Chinese heart; (c) stayed in the O's house for three days; and (d) around July 15, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, was aware that P and R arrived at the AF house, a person subject to North Korea's escape.

On July 16, 201, the following day, the Defendant: (a) entered the port near the Seogjin-dong of the People's Republic of China; (b) confirmed the monitoring situation of the North Korean border guard; and (c) went beyond two thousands of the two thousands of the two rivers, and (d) went to the Sambong-gu of the Samdae-gun of the Sugjin-gun of the Republic of Korea.

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P, R 및 탈북 대상자 3명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 탈북 대가로 중국 인민폐 1만 5천 원(약 250만 원)과 중국산 휴대전화 1개를 넘겨주고, 경비가 소홀해지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 3명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 7. 17. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 3명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

The defendant, as a resident of the Republic of Korea, visited North Korea without the approval of the Minister of Unification.

3. Third North Korea without permission.

On August 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of North Korean defectors AG, AH, AI, and AJ that he/she will take care of the friendship that he/she lives in North Korea, and agreed to take care of his/her family AK, AL and AH AH, AM, AM, AJ's early operation, and AJ's children to China through China with the aid of the cooperations between China and North Korea, and then, the Defendant agreed to take the family AK, AL and AH, AM, AM, AJ's early operation, and AJ's children into China into China, and to receive expenses therefrom.

On August 30, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, sent five persons who were requested to escape from North Korea to P, Q and R, who were the cooperations in North Korea, to the S house located in Hong-gun Hong-gun AC, and P and Q, around August 30, 201, known the Defendant by telephone that the persons subject to escape from North Korea arrive in the S house.

On August 30, 2011, at the Incheon National Security Service, the Defendant was staying in the house of the aboveO located in the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the 2011.

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P, Q 및 탈북 대상자 5명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 탈북 대가로 중국 인민폐 3만 원(약 500만 원)을 넘겨주고, 경비가 소홀해지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 5명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 9. 4. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 5명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

The defendant, as a resident of the Republic of Korea, visited North Korea without the approval of the Minister of Unification.

4. Four North Korea without permission.

On September 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of North Korean defectors AP and Q that he wishes to pay for the friendship living in North Korea, with the aid of those cooperation between China and North Korea, and then entered China through a familyR, AS, AT, AT, AU and Q, and the family AV, AW, AX were transferred to China, and the Defendant promised to have them enter the Republic of Korea through a third country.

On October 5, 201, the Defendant: (a) 7, who was requested to escape from North Korea to P, Q and R, who was a cooperation in North Korea, was moved to the S house in the Hong-gun Hong-gun AC; and (b) around October 5, 201, P and Q were known by telephone that the Defendant arrived at the family AP's family R, AS, AT, and AU among the persons subject to escape from North Korea.

On October 5, 2011, the Defendant was staying in the house of the aboveO located in the city of Y, after getting on a airplane at the Incheon National Security Service port, departing from the Chinese heart, and staying there for three days at the house of the aboveO located in the city of YY. On October 8, 2011, the Defendant: (a) checked the status of supervision of the North Korean National Security Service, after having arrived at the 200 thousandss of the People's Republic of China, the Defendant got on a car provided by O around the middle River of the People's Republic of China; and (b) confirmed the status of supervision of the North Korean National Security Service near the

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P, Q 및 탈북 대상자 4명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 탈북 대가로 중국 인민페 4만 원(약 750만 원)을 넘겨주고, 경비가 소홀해지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 4명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 9. 4. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 4명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어왔다.

The defendant, as a resident of the Republic of Korea, visited North Korea without the approval of the Minister of Unification.

5. Five North Korea without permission.

On October 10, 201, P and Q left the AP's family by telephone, and it was known that the family, AW, and AX of the defendant, who was waiting for the AP's house in China, arrive at the S's house located in the Hong-gun Hong-gun AC among the North Korean defectors who were waiting for the AP in China's future.

On October 11, 201, the Defendant: (a) arrived at the two Han-dong adjacent to the Yan-dong of China and then confirmed the monitoring situation of the North Korean border guard; (b) went beyond two thousands of the two directions, and (c) went to the Sambong-gu of the Honggun-gun of the two strengths of North Korea.

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P, Q 및 탈북 대상자 3명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 탈북 대가로 중국 인민폐 5천 원(약 90만 원)을 주고, 경비가 소홀해지는 새벽까지 P, Q 및 탈북 대상자 3명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 10. 12. 05:00경 P, Q 및 탈북 대상자 3명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

The defendant, as a resident of the Republic of Korea, visited North Korea without the approval of the Minister of Unification.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in part of the trial court;

1. Each police protocol on W, X, AV, Q, AB, Z, AD, E, E, AJ, AI,N, AR, and AS;

1. Request for cooperation in business, and personal immigration status;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 27(1)1 and 9(1) of the former Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act (Amended by Act No. 12396, Mar. 11, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the selection of fines, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Grounds for sentencing

The fact that the defendant, without obtaining the approval of visit from the Minister of Unification, visited North Korea over several occasions and visited North Korea, and the quality of the crime is not good. The background is that the defendant, while the defendant is a first offender who has no record of committing any crime after entering the Republic of Korea as a North Korean escape resident, he/she is disadvantageous to the defendant, the defendant also has no record of committing any crime after entering the Republic of Korea. The fact relevance of each of the crimes in this part seems to be contrary to his/her mistake. The defendant's failure to file an appeal after having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment for a period of two years at the first instance court, and thus, it is necessary to consider equity and other concurrent crimes with each of the crimes of fraud and electronic financial transactions, which are separate and finalized, and all of the circumstances that constitute the conditions for sentencing in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc., shall be determined as per the order.

Part of the acquittal [the part on the charge of violation of the National Security Act (Influence, escape)]

1. Summary of the primary facts charged

The Defendant received education to promote understanding of the Korean society at one source, etc. after entry into the Republic of Korea, and received the education to promote understanding of the Korean society, the prohibition of behavior deviating from the purpose of travel overseas, the education to travel overseas, such as the possibility of visit to North Korea at the time of visit to the border region, the case where North Korean defectors returned to the Republic of Korea, and the case where North Korean defectors returned to the Republic of Korea at the two thousands of rivers, and were punished as a violation of the National Security Act by escaping from North Korea after re-entry into North Korea, etc., and the North Korean defectors were subject to the social settlement education for North Korean defectors who were punished as a violation of the National Security Act. If North Korean defectors were to arbitrarily enter North Korea area without due process, there is a high risk of enhancing the tension between South and North Korea if North Korean defectors were arrested or voluntarily cooperate with North Korean authorities, and the North Korean defectors who entered North Korea is able to use North Korea's living in the Republic of Korea, economic basic order, social, and cultural fields as well as to ensure existence and safety of the Republic of Korea.

Nevertheless, the defendant was aware that he works for NEs, who are North Korean defectors' organizations, and that he would be able to escape from North Korea in return for the payment from North Korean defectors who settled in the Republic of Korea, and that he had been living in the border area in the past China and exceeded two thousands of course from time to time to time to time to visit North Korea through the 2000s River, and concluded that he was able to bring North Korea back to North Korea in a way that he was moving back to North Korea, and received the payment, and that he was able to cooperate with the resident organizations in the future of China, which he was aware that he was able to support North Korea, and that P, Q, R, and S, which were able to help North Korea inside the country.

(a) The primary escape;

On May 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of T, U, and V that North Korean defectors would return to North Korea, and agreed to receive the cost of T, X, Y and U family Z, AA and V AB through China with the aid of those cooperations between China and North Korea, and to transfer T, X, Y and U family Z, AA and V to China, and to enable them to enter Korea through third countries.

On May 30, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, sent six persons requested P and R to depart from North Korea, who are cooperations in North Korea, to take the house of another cooperations S in Hong-gun Hong-gun AC, and P and R came to know on May 30, 201 that they arrive at the house of S.

On May 30, 2011, the Defendant boarded the aircraft at the Incheon National Security Service port and left the Republic of China, and stayed in the Republic of China for two days at the office of the Organization located in the Republic of Korea, a cooperative in China. On June 1, 201, the Defendant: (a) checked the status of surveillance of the North Korean National Security Service, on board the motor vehicle provided by the O around the first half of the Han River-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon-Jon of the Republic of Korea; (b) confirmed the status of surveillance of the North Korean National Security

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P 및 탈북 대상자 6명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 협조 대가로 중국 인민폐 3만원(약 500만원)과 중국산 휴대전화 3개를 넘겨주고, 경비가 소홀해 지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 6명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 6. 2. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 6명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

Accordingly, the defendant escaped to North Korea under the control of anti-government organizations with knowledge that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

(b) Second escape;

On July 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of North Korean defectors AD and V that he/she wishes to pay for the friendship that he/she lives in North Korea, with the aid of the cooperations of China and North Korea, and then entered China through the cooperations of China, followed AD's family AE, E and V moving into China, and promised to allow them to enter the Republic of Korea through a third country, and to receive the expenses.

On July 12, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, sent three persons requested P and R to depart from North Korea to the house of S located in Hong-gun Hong-gun Hong-gun, Hong-gun. P and R were known by telephone that the Defendant arrived at the house of S, which is a North Korean partner of P and R.

On July 12, 2011, the Defendant: (a) boarded the aircraft at the Incheon State Provision port; (b) stayed from the Chinese heart; (c) stayed in the O's house for three days; and (d) around July 15, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, was aware that P and R arrived at the AF house, a person subject to North Korea's escape.

On July 16, 2011, the following day, the Defendant: (a) entered the port near the Peong River of the People's Republic of China; (b) confirmed the monitoring situation of the Peong River of the People's Republic of China; and (c) went beyond two thousands of course; (d) went to the Sambong-gun of the Seong-gun of the Republic of Korea.

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P, R 및 탈북 대상자 3명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 탈북 대가로 중국 인민폐 1만 5천원(약 250만원)과 중국산 휴대전화 1개를 넘겨주고, 경비가 소홀해 지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 3명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 7. 17. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 3명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

Accordingly, the defendant escaped to North Korea under the control of anti-government organizations with knowledge that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

(c) Third escape;

On August 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of North Korean defectors AG, AH, AI, and AJ that he/she will take care of the friendship living in North Korea, and agreed to take care of family AK, AL and AH's AH's son, AH's son, AH's sonN, AJ's sonN, and AJ's AJ's son to China and to take it into China through a third country.

On August 30, 201, the Defendant, by telephone, sent five persons who were requested to escape from North Korea to P, Q and R, who were the cooperations in North Korea, to the S house located in Hong-gun Hong-gun AC, and P and Q, around August 30, 201, known the Defendant by telephone that the persons subject to escape from North Korea arrive in the S house.

On August 30, 2011, at the Incheon National Security Service, the Defendant was staying in the house of the aboveO located in the city of the Chinese heart after getting on the aircraft at the port of Incheon National Security Service and departing from the Republic of China. On September 3, 201, the Defendant: (a) checked the situation of the supervision of the North Korean National Security Service, after having arrived at the two thousands near the Seogjin-dong, Seogjin-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seog-gu, in the middle of North Korea; and (b) confirmed the status of supervision of the North Korean National Security Service; and (c) went to the Samg-gu, Seog-gu.

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P, Q 및 탈북 대상자 5명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 탈북 대가로 중국 인민폐 3만원(약 500만원)을 넘겨주고, 경비가 소홀해지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 5명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 9. 4. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 5명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

Accordingly, the defendant escaped to North Korea under the control of anti-government organizations with knowledge that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

(d) Fourth escape;

On September 201, the Defendant consented to the proposal of North Korean defectors AP and Q that he wishes to pay for the friendship living in North Korea, with the aid of those cooperation between China and North Korea, and then entered China through a familyR, AS, AT, AT, AU and Q, and the family AV, AW, AX were transferred to China, and the Defendant promised to have them enter the Republic of Korea through a third country.

On October 5, 201, the Defendant: (a) 7, who was requested to escape from North Korea to P, Q and R, who was a cooperation in North Korea, was moved to the S house in the Hong-gun Hong-gun AC; and (b) around October 5, 201, P and Q were known by telephone that the Defendant arrived at the family AP's family R, AS, AT, and AU among the persons subject to escape from North Korea.

On October 8, 2011, 201, the Defendant was staying in the house of the aboveO located in the city of Y, after getting on the aircraft at the Incheon National Security Service port, and going to a three-day dwelling in the house of the aboveO located in the city of YY. On October 8, 2011, after having arrived at the two thousands near the TY-dong, the Defendant got on the ship provided by O, and confirmed the status of surveillance of the North Korean National Security Service, and going to a three-way dwelling in the Hong-gun, Sejong-gun, Suwon-gun, Suwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City of the People's Republic of China.

그 후 피고인은 강변 야산에 숨어 있는 S, P, Q 및 탈북 대상자 4명과 합류하였고, S 등에게 탈북 대가로 중국 인민폐 4만원(약 750만원)을 넘겨주고, 경비가 소홀해지는 새벽까지 탈북 대상자 4명과 함께 야산에 숨어 있다가 2011. 9. 4. 05:00경 탈북 대상자 4명을 인솔하여 야산을 내려와 처음 건넜던 곳을 이용하여 두만강을 건너 중국 쪽으로 넘어 왔다.

Accordingly, the defendant escaped to North Korea under the control of anti-government organizations with knowledge that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

(e) The fifth escape; and

around 10, 10, 2011, P and Q were released from the family of AP by telephone, and it was known that the defendant, who was waiting in the office of AV, AW, AX, and AC among the North Korean defectors, arrived at the Shouse located in AC of AV from among the North Korean defectors who were waiting in the office of AP in the city of China.

On October 11, 2011, the Defendant: (a) entered the port near the Peong-dong of the People's Republic of China; (b) confirmed the monitoring situation of the Peong-gun of the Republic of China; (c) went beyond two thousands of the two rivers; and (d) went to the Sambong-gun of the Seong-gun of the Republic of Korea.

After that, the Defendant was able to combine with three persons subject to S, P, Q, and North Korea, which are hidden in river mountain, and 5,000 won of Chinese People's abolition 5,000 won (per 90,000 won) in consideration of North Korea's escape to S, etc., and three persons subject to P, Q, and North Korea's escape were concealed in Nagoya up to the new wall where expenses are neglected, and around 05:0 on October 12, 201, 200, 3 persons subject to P, Q, and North Korea's escape were led to the direction of 20,000 China.

Accordingly, the defendant escaped to North Korea under the control of anti-government organizations with knowledge that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

2. Determination

This constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as examined in the above 4.A. of the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be pronounced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of violation of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act (preliminary charges) against the defendant in relation to the crime, the court

Judges Jeon Soo-hoon

Judges Cho Jin-hee