1. As to each of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel, Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act provides that "any person who receives money or goods with the knowledge of the fact that the other party who received money or goods is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received an order from it." Thus, the crime of receiving money or goods under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act is established without examining the purpose of receiving money or goods if the person who received the money or goods receives money or goods from the knowledge of the fact that he is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received an order from it. Thus, the crime of receiving money or goods under Article 5 (2) of the same Act is established without knowing that it is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received an order from it (see Supreme Court Decision 62Do24 delivered on April 4, 196; 70Do2357 delivered on September 28, 197; 82Do1968 delivered on July 13, 1987).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act, and there is no reason to argue otherwise.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal:

Of the facts charged against the defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had an intention to practice the ordered matters of the entry in the facts charged when entering Japan in Japan, and as to the espionage, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the defendant read the contents of the thesis, "the justification for the establishment of the master teacher system" in the magazine, which is the "educational Materials" as recorded in the facts charged, and even if there are facts reading the contents, it is difficult to find that the detection was collected for the accomplishment of the purpose of the anti-government organization. In light of the records, the process of the fact-finding is just, and there is no error of law that misleads the defendant of the facts as to the whole facts by insufficient deliberation or by the rules of evidence. The argument is without merit merely because it merely causes legitimate evidence preparation and fact-finding belonging to the whole authority of the court below.

3. Therefore, all appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)