beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.09.05 2014재노7

국가보안법위반(기타)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. The Defendant was indicted on January 17, 1976 by Seoul District Criminal Court 76Rahap32 on the charges of violating the National Security Act, and the above court found the Defendant guilty of the above charges on June 8, 1976 and sentenced the Defendant to 10 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for 10 years.

B. The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed on the above judgment. On October 25, 1976, the Seoul High Court accepted the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing and reversed the lower judgment and sentenced the Defendant to seven years of imprisonment and seven years of suspension of qualification. The Defendant appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on February 8, 197 under the control of 76Do4071, thereby becoming final and conclusive.

C. On February 10, 2014, the Defendant filed the instant request for retrial, and accordingly, this Court rendered a decision of commencing a retrial on June 19, 2014, which became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not commit a crime as stated in the instant facts charged, and the Defendant made a false confession due to the illegal confinement, prolonged detention, adviser, etc. committed by an investigative agency. Therefore, the lower court’s conviction of the Defendant is unlawful. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. As stated in the facts charged, the same shall apply.

4. Determination

A. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that ① all citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings (Article 10), ② No one shall be arrested, detained, seized, searched, or interrogated unless otherwise provided by the Act, and all citizens shall be forced to be informed of any adviser and to make any statement unfavorable to himself/herself in criminal cases (Article 12(1) and (2), ③ confession of the accused shall be admitted as evidence of guilt when it is recognized that the confession of the accused is not voluntarily made by means of adviser, assault, threat, or other means.