국가보안법위반(찬양ㆍ고무등)등
. 6 copies (No. 89 of the same certificate) and one independent color franchise card (2m*1m) (92m) from the Defendant, respectively.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) adoption of the evidence portion on (1) e-mail (EX account output (hereinafter “e-mail of this case”), there was no evidence as to the production by AV of the content, and there was no evidence as to the fact that the prosecutor made sufficient efforts to summon AV, and there was no proof that the statement or preparation was made under particularly reliable circumstances. Thus, the admissibility of evidence of the above e-mail cannot be acknowledged as to the above e-mail.
(2) With respect to the contents of the Kakao Stockholm conversation (hereinafter “the instant contents of the Kakao Stockholm conversation”), it did not secure the contents of the Kakao Stockholm conversation subject to communication-restricting measures by having real time known and recorded them. However, the employees of the telecommunications company, who was entrusted with the execution by an investigation agency, acquired the contents of the conversation stored in the server at regular intervals and sent it to the investigation agency after collecting the contents of the conversation stored in the server. Thus, the said contents of the Kakao Stockholm conversation constitute illegally collected evidence in violation of the implementation method of the communication-restricting measures permit.
In addition, the contents of the Kakao Stockholm dialogue constitute illegally collected evidence in that the Defendants’ right to participate was obstructed in the execution of search and seizure.
Therefore, the admissibility of the above Kakao Stockholm conversation cannot be admitted.
B) The part of the composition of the dual organization (hereinafter “Z”) does not constitute “the dual organization” as prescribed by the National Security Act.
C) The crime of dual assistance under the National Security Act in part of the same Article is an independent crime separate from the crime of dual assistance, and thus punishment again constitutes double punishment on the ground that the crime of dual assistance is recognized as a crime of dual assistance.
B. In order for A to recognize the Defendants to commit the crime of immigration assistance, the Defendants are only dual organizations.