[반공법위반][집20(2)형,049]
Article 4 of the Anti-Public Act provides that an act of praiseing or provoking the so-called anti-state organization may not be viewed as requiring that the actor has an intent to commit such an act, and it would be sufficient if there is awareness of such an intent.
In the anti-public law article 4, the so-called anti-government organization's act of praiseing or pro-government organization can not be viewed as requiring that the actor has the intent to commit the act, and it is sufficient if there is only awareness of such fact.
Article 4 of the Antipublic Law
Defendant
Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No1920 decided March 31, 1972, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No1920 decided March 31, 1972
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are examined as follows.
Examining the evidence publicly admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge facts in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant's speech and behavior, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, is nothing more than a mere agricultural fence that was conducted with respect to the drinking field loan. Thus, the court below's determination that the defendant's behavior, like the facts in the judgment of the court of first instance, constitutes an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below since it did not constitute an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles of experience, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's behavior constitutes a temporary act as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above acts of misunderstanding the legal principles, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles.
There is no ground for appeal to the lower court that there is an error of misunderstanding of legal principles, omission of judgment, or perjury.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court