beta
(영문) 대법원 1970. 2. 24. 선고 69도2384 판결

[국가보안법위반,반공법위반,수산업법위반][집18(1)형,018]

Main Issues

The case held that the North Korean leader's act of fishing with a fishing force near the fishing base line may not be regarded as a criminal intent against the acts of praiseing his members' activities and providing them with information belonging to the secrets of the Republic of Korea, and the acts of receiving money and valuables from them.

Summary of Judgment

The appearance of the members of the North Korean leader does not carry out fishing operations at the risk of kidnapping and escape, but, in such a case, the person was arrested to the members of the North Korean leader and went into an area under the control of the North Korean leader while carrying out fishing operations at the vicinity of the fishing base line with the fishing base line, and then committed a crime of mounding the activities of the North Korean leader and divulging the secrets of the Republic of Korea, thereby benefiting the North Korean leader and receiving money and valuables from the North Korean leader, if the member of the North Korean leader were involved in fishing at the vicinity of the fishing base line, it would be likely that the member of the North Korean leader would be arrested if he/she were engaged in fishing, and even if it is anticipated that the aforementioned crime could be committed, it cannot be said that the person had a criminal intent to commit the above crime.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 of the National Security Act, Article 4 of the Anti-Public Law, Article 10 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant 1 and four others

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 69No318 delivered on November 27, 1969, Decision 69No318 delivered on November 27, 1969

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office are examined.

Of the facts charged, the lower court determined that the Defendants were unable to have engaged in an unrefforting or unreffortable fishing, and that the Defendants were forced to engage in an unreffortable fishing, and that the Defendants were forced to engage in an unreffortable fishing, and that the Defendants were forced to engage in an unreffort fishing, and that the Defendants were unable to engage in an unrefforting or unreffortable fishing, and that the Defendants were forced to engage in an unreffort fishing, and that the Defendants were forced to engage in an unrefforting or unreffort fishing, and that the Defendants were unlikely to engage in an unrefforting or unreffort fishing, and that the Defendants were forced to engage in an unfortunateing and unfortunateing act in the Republic of Korea. However, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants were likely to have engaged in an unfortunateing and unfortunateing act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on the ground that there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, and the appeal is dismissed.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court