Defendant 1 and the same Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each year.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The defense counsel of the Defendants

(1) Defendant 1’s defense counsel

(A) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

(1) Violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly and mistake of facts as to objective constituent elements, in the absence of any indictment.

Defendant 1 did not have ordered Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to domestic and foreign sentiments, and there was no fact that Defendant 1 sent documents to the U.S. vice versa and sent them to the U.S. vice versa. Defendant 1 merely stated that Defendant 2 only told Defendant 2 that “the head of the U.S. vice versa must inform him of his intention to return to the U.S.,” did not directly present theme and contents, and did not direct Defendant 2 to make a document, and Defendant 2 voluntarily prepared documents and talks with them. Defendant 1 could have sent documents to the U.S. government agencies. Although Defendant 1 could have sent documents to the U.S. government agencies, there was no statement that Defendant 2 “the documents sent by Defendant 1 to the U.S. vice versa. vice versa.” Nevertheless, the lower court ordered Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to domestic and foreign sentiments and sent the documents to the U.S. vice versa, and found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the evidence that did not have the admissibility of evidence as to this case’s whole evidence.

Furthermore, the facts charged in violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly stated the contents of the member's question and the answer of Defendant 1. According to the record of the National Assembly stenographic records, Defendant 1 did not have any fact of objectively different statements in relation to the question of the member of the National Assembly. In this regard, the judgment of the court below

(2) In violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the remaining matters.

Corresponding facts concerning the criminal intent of false statements

In the inspection place of the state administration, the purpose of questioning by the members of the National Assembly was not objectively apparent, and Defendant 1 responded to the truth from his standpoint as memory. Even if there were some statements contrary to objective facts, the above Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit a false statement. Nevertheless, the lower court found that the above Defendant had an intention to make a false statement.

(C) misunderstanding the legal principles on the right to refuse to testify and the establishment of perjury under the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. in the National Assembly

According to Article 3 of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly and Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in the case of Defendant 1, Defendant 1 has the right to refuse to take an oath and the right to refuse to testify at the inspection site of the state administration. Unlike the Criminal Procedure Act that provides for the notification of the right to refuse to testify, the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly does not provide for the notification of the right to refuse to testify. However, the right to be notified of the right to refuse to testify should be guaranteed as a citizen’s fundamental right pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Constitution. Thus, the above provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act should be applied by analogy to the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 made testimony without being notified thereof. Thus, the oath and testimony itself cannot be deemed valid as being in violation of due process, and thus, perjury cannot be punished. Accordingly, the judgment below recognized otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on

Article 5 (3) and (4) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly, and concerning the establishment of perjury

Article 5(3) and (4) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly provides that matters concerning the summary of the examination shall be served in advance to protect witnesses, and any such provision is inconsistent with the due process and cannot be deemed valid. Defendant 1 merely served the summary of the examination on the permission procedure for Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2 and did not receive the summary of the examination on the leakage of State secrets, and Defendant 1 did not comply with the service period. Thus, Defendant 1’s testimony cannot be deemed valid and the perjury cannot be established. Accordingly, the lower court, which recognized otherwise, recognized that Defendant 1 committed perjury, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of perjury and Article 5(3) and (4) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly.

Legal principles concerning the possibility of expectation

Even if Defendant 1 testified contrary to objective facts, since there was no possibility that Defendant 1 would give testimony differently, Defendant 1 would be acquitted, Defendant 1 would be guilty, but the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of Defendant 1. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the possibility of expectation.

(B) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that Defendant 1 only stated some scarcity facts differently from objective facts in the process of actively ordering Defendant 2 to respond to Defendant 1’s scarcity in response to Defendant 2’s scarcity, and that it cannot be said that the punishment is significant, the sentence of the court below sentenced Defendant 1 to a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

(2) Defendant 2’s defense counsel

(A) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

(1) As to defamation by radio

Defendant 2 had no intention to slander Defendant 1 at the time of interview with the original broadcast, or had no intention to defame defamation. However, Defendant 2 only discovered a part of the situation of the process that became a legislative investigator because of extreme interest and chilling conditions at the time, and interviewed Defendant 1’s behavior in the legislative investigator’s office as it is true.

② As to the injury

Defendant 2’s act was a legitimate act in accordance with the social rules to prevent infringement of his portrait rights or a legitimate self-defense. Defendant 2’s act was a legitimate act in order to prevent infringement of his portrait rights, and was a legitimate act in accordance with the social rules, and was a legitimate self-defense to prevent infringement of his portrait rights.

(3) Conclusion

Therefore, although Defendant 2 should be acquitted, the court below found Defendant 2 guilty, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of the relevant crime, etc.

(B) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that Defendant 2 is working as a professor of ○○ University, there is no history of criminal punishment, Defendant 2 testified to disclose the criminal records of Defendant 1 at risk of causing danger to Defendant 2, and Defendant 1 suffered various pains from Defendant 1, and Defendant 2’s reason why Defendant 2 prevented Nonparty 3 from taking pictures and the degree of assault, etc., the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced Defendant 2 to a suspended sentence of two years for eight months, is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant 2)

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted Defendant 2 on the charge of defamation against Defendant 2, violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, promotion of the use of information and communications networks, and information protection, etc. (defluence). However, Defendant 1 did not directly threaten Defendant 2 with the same content as indicated in the facts charged, and the part indicated or testified differently from the fact is an important part, and Defendant 2 recognized that Defendant 2 testified or testified was false, and thus, Defendant 2 should be found guilty in its entirety. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation and perjury, etc.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

As examined below, although there was a change in indictment to some facts charged against the Defendants in the trial, it is to judge the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the changed facts charged which are irrelevant to the change in indictment and the changed facts charged due to the change in indictment.

A. As to Defendant 1

(1) The part on violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly

(A) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1: (a) instructed Defendant 2, who was in charge of Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) to take an oath on October 31, 2006 at the inspection place of the culture and tourism committee in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National Assembly; and (b) prepared so-called “S-1” papers; and (c) instructed Defendant 2, who was in charge of the joint representative director, to answer his testimony to the effect that Defendant 2’s initial testimony was not written by Defendant 2; and (d) instructed Defendant 2 to make a timely supplement to Defendant 2’s initial testimony and to make a false statement to the effect that “this is against the direction of the U.S. National Assembly member,” and that Nonindicted Co. 4 prepared a false statement to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 2 (“Defendant 2”) asked Defendant 2 to answer his testimony to the effect that Defendant 2’s testimony was not “conffort with the direction of the National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea,” and that Nonindicted Co. 2 asked Defendant 2 to present his answer to Defendant 2.”

(B) The circumstances and contents of Defendant 1’s testimony at the National Assembly

피고인 1과 피고인 2의 원심 및 당심 법정에서의 각 일부 진술, 국회 문화관광위원회 회의록의 기재 등 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거들에 의하면, 공소외 8 주식회사(대표이사 피고인 1, 이하 ‘ 공소외 8 회사’라고 한다)는 2006. 3.경 △△지역 민영방송 사업자 선정과 관련하여 CBS 등과 함께 △△TV 컨소시엄을 구성하여 2006. 3. 27. 방송위원회에 가칭 공소외 9 주식회사(대표이사 피고인 2, 이하 ‘ 공소외 9 회사’라고 한다) 명의의 허가추천신청서를 제출하여 2006. 4. 28. 방송위원회로부터 △△지역 지상파 방송사업 허가추천 대상 법인으로 선정되었고, 공소외 9 회사는 공소외 2 회사를 설립한 사실, 공소외 8 회사와 CBS는 위 컨소시엄 연합 방안 및 설립예정이었던 공소외 2 회사의 대표이사와 편성책임자의 임기 등을 둘러싸고 이견이 발생하여 CBS는 2006. 4. 13. 공소외 8 회사에게 공소외 9 회사의 대표이사이던 피고인 2의 임기를 공소외 2 회사 설립 후 3년으로 정하고, 그 이전에 해임할 경우에는 위약금을 지급해 줄 것을 요청하였으나, 공소외 8 회사는 2006. 4. 19. CBS에게 피고인 2의 고용계약 기간의 범위를 사업법인 설립 전까지로 국한되어야 한다고 주장하여 갈등이 계속되다가 2006. 8. 29. 공소외 2 회사의 이사회를 통해 공모로 대표이사가 새로 선임될 때까지 피고인 1과 피고인 2를 임시 공동대표이사로 선임하기로 결정한 사실, 공소외 8 회사의 공모 준비작업에 참여하였던 공소외 1(대법원판결의 공소외인)은 2006. 7. 1.경 공소외 8 회사의 방송자문역으로 입사하였으나 기존에 제출한 이력서가 허위로 판명되고 대외적으로 회사의 고위직을 사칭하고 다닌다는 등의 문제가 생기자 2006. 9. 21.경 퇴사한 이후 2006. 9. 24.경 공소외 10 주식회사(이하 ‘ 공소외 10 회사’라 한다)에 근무하는 공소외 11에게 공소외 2 회사의 주금납입과 관련해서 공소외 10 회사와 합의한 합의서 파일 등을 이메일로 보내달라고 하여 공소외 11로부터 합의서 등을 이메일로 교부받고 구 ◇TV 직원세부분류표를 입수하여 둔 것을 기화로, 공소외 2 회사에 대한 사업계획 승인 및 지상파 방송사업 허가추천여부 결정을 위한 방송위원회 전체회의를 앞두고 있던 2006. 10. 초순경 ☆☆기자협회의 공소외 12 기자에게 ‘ 공소외 2 회사 선정 당시 공소외 8 회사가 청와대와 방송위원회에 금품로비를 하였다’는 제보를 하였고, 공소외 12는 2006. 10. 11.자 기자협회보에 위와 같은 내용의 기사를 게재한 사실, 공소외 1은 2006. 10. 초순경 당시 국회 문화관광위원회 소속 국회의원 공소외 13의 보좌관 공소외 14에게 ‘ 공소외 8 회사가 공소외 10 회사로부터 공소외 2 회사의 지분을 매입하기로 하는 이면합의를 하여 방송법 소정의 최대주주 규정을 위반하였고, 구 ◇TV 직원들의 성향을 분석하여 고용승계를 제한하였으며, 피고인 1이 청와대 홍보수석실 행정관 등에게 금품을 제공하는 등 문제가 많다’고 제보하면서 공소외 11로부터 받은 위 합의서 및 자신이 공소외 8 회사에 근무할 때 작성하였던 위 합의서의 기안 용지, 구 ◇TV 직원세부분류표 등을 공소외 14에게 이메일로 제공하였고, 공소외 14를 통하여 위 각 자료들을 입수한 국회의원 공소외 13은 2006. 10. 16. 국회기자실에서 기자회견을 열어 ‘제2의 ◇TV 사태를 막아야 한다’는 제목 아래 위 공소외 1의 제보 내용과 같은 취지의 성명을 발표하고 위 내용이 기재된 보도자료를 기자들에게 배포한 사실, 국회 문화관광위원회 상임위원회는 2006. 10. 23. △△TV 컨소시엄 측이 민영방송 사업자로 선정되는 과정에서 금품로비를 벌였다는 등의 의혹을 규명하기 위하여 피고인 1과 피고인 2를 방송위원회에 대한 국정감사의 증인으로 채택하였고, 증인으로 신문할 요지에 대하여 ‘ 공소외 2 회사 추천과정에서의 하자의 존부’라고 기재하여 출석요구서를 보낸 사실, 피고인 2는 2006. 10. 31. 위 국정감사장에서 증언에 앞서 피고인 1의 정보 해외유출 의혹을 폭로하는 내용이 담긴 ‘ 공소외 8 회사 피고인 1 회장의 이해 못할 활동에 대하여’라는 제목의 문건을 배포한 후 증인으로 출석하였고, 피고인 1도 증인으로 출석하여 선서한 다음 국회의원들의 질의에 대하여 아래 증언 내용(공소사실과 관련된 부분에 한하여 기재함)과 같이 진술한 사실, 한편 피고인 1은 위 선서에 앞서 국회 문화관광위원회 위원장 국회의원 공소외 15로부터 증언거부권을 고지받지 아니한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

【Contents of Testimony】

* Nonindicted 4 members

Non-Indicted 4 member: It is judged that currently Defendant 2’s term of this case is a severe content, and in the event of perjury, he is accused and punished.

Defendant 1: Examples

In the case of Non-Indicted 4 members: whether there is an enemy who had been made by Defendant 2 to the effect that Defendant 1 was a witness?

Defendant 1 does not mean that Defendant 2 was the witness. As the representative of Defendant 2 was out of the country, Defendant 1 would be able to report the situation related to the domestic and foreign countries in a more way, and Defendant 2 would be able to report the situation at a time if he became a joint representative because he became well aware of the fact in the Republic of Korea. It was said that Defendant 1 would be able to report the situation at a time. The daily direction was made.

* Nonindicted 5 Council members

Non-Indicted 5’s member: (a) Defendant 1’s witness, and the amount of dysium from this period of dysium?

Defendant 1: Defendant 2’s representative is made.

Non-Indicted 5 member: how much he dn't wn? It is why he wn't wn't do so, but we need to do so.

증인 피고인 1 : 피고인 2 대표가 가져오면 받아서 얘기만 나눴습니다.

Non-Indicted 5 member: Does not take place in the case of being brought?

Defendant 1: The time the No. 1 requests are made by the witness and it is possible to bring about the witness.

Non-Indicted 5's members: The degree of involvement has been made, and even if so, there has been only the request for the preparation of documents.

Defendant 1: Defendant 1: He was fluored to inform him that he will return to the world.

The non-indicted 5 member is not what he had prepared because he knows that he will return to his world?

Defendant 1: Examples, I do.

Non-Indicted 5 member: Whether some of the contents should be recognized?

Defendant 1: Not only Defendant 1 but also need to be given and taken with each other.

Non-Indicted 5 members: Whether they are given and received?

Defendant 1: Examples of witness

Non-Indicted 5 members: It is necessary to send them to the Republic of Korea?

Defendant 1: There is no way to send out the witness to the country. It is clear that the proposal will enter and conduct an investigation in detail, and the Internet will be investigated once it is a computer.

The members of Non-Indicted 5: It is necessary to enable this △TV Broadcasting to reveal the truth by requesting a judicial authority to investigate the facts, so that the truth and truth can be revealed in two minutes being investigated?

Defendant 1, as well as Defendant 1.

* Nonindicted 6 Members

Non-Indicted 6 member: In the report on the representative of Defendant 2, S-1, whether there is no such a note?

Defendant 2: Shall be written with a pen.

Non-Indicted 6 member: whom this is written?

Defendant 2: this is written in the name of the witness.

The non-indicted 6 member : I do so, however, be asked more. In this regard, the issue of the issuance of the visa to Korean people is expressed every month, and the reference for the issuance of the visa and the publication of the type of refusal, and there are these problems, so I am the chairperson of the defendant 1, and I am dice with the representative of the defendant 2?

Defendant 2: Defendant 1’s chairman’s thickness and this is so made by Defendant 1’s chairman. If you create this, I would like to put this in the first place. On the other hand, I would like to put in the second place not to do this but to add more additionals. And I arranged again.

Non-Indicted 6 member: Gambling, I will know.

Defendant 1’s Chairman, the President of the N.C., and Defendant 2’s representative, based on these documents, made a conversation and divided his opinion?

Defendant 1: Facts.

In the case of Non-Indicted 6 members: In this context, for whom, what kind of a non-indicted 6's issuance status, a letter of non-indicted 6's issuance status, a letter of refusal?

Defendant 1: The fact that the Defendant 1 entered his body will bring about 100% by the representatives of Defendant 2, and there is only one letter that the Defendant 2 would not think of it. It is 1 to 8 or 7. The 100% representative of Defendant 2 was made by the Defendant 2. The Defendant 1’s instructions are made by the Defendant 1 to 8 or 7. The author is not well English. The author is not well English.

Non-Indicted 6 members: I will know well.

The representative of the defendant 2, who thought that the representative of the defendant 2 had drank? The idea that this opinion would be desirable to report monthly statistics on the issuance status of the Korean visa on the side of the U.S. Embassy and explain the reasons why the visa was not issued?

Defendant 2: To this end, I reported that this item will be good if you enter, and that the related materials would be searched, as the search ability is rapid, even if you suggest.

* Nonindicted 4 members

Non-Indicted 4: Non-Indicted 4’s member; I would like to ask Non-Indicted 4’s thickness; I would like to ask Defendant 2’s thickness; in relation to the preparation of the report, I would now have received an instruction on the basic direction for preparing a report in advance to the effect that Defendant 1’s s-1, S-2, and S-3 was created by Defendant 2, and I would like to make it voluntarily?

Defendant 2: Defendant 2: First, the telephone was made, at any time, by making it possible to do so, at a few pages. The first time was determined, but all the following things were determined.

Non-Indicted 4 Commissioner: Whether Defendant 1’s witness is not recognized?

Defendant 1: He shall be aware of. A.

Non-Indicted 4 member: Along with the need to know and knew.

* Nonindicted 16 Members

Non-Indicted 16 member: On the other hand, the representative of Defendant 2 is required to do so. Whether this is written in the name of Defendant 2’s representative?

Defendant 2: this is the case.

Non-Indicted 16 member: Doz.?

Defendant 2: Examples of witness

Non-Indicted 16 member: However, if we read this, we added that we would go up to the book of the current U.S. vice versa?

Defendant 2: The Witness 2:

Non-Indicted 16 member: Defendant 1 Chairman?

Defendant 2: Examples of witness

Non-Indicted 16 Committee members: Dow Dow Dow fl?

Defendant 1: The fact at all is not true. It is so big that this will be done at a time in order to make the broadcast available at this time. The later is frighten by an investigative agency.

Non-Indicted 16 members: Doz.?

Defendant 1: this document is significant.

Non-Indicted 16 members: One of the two divisions is now false.

Defendant 1: Examples.

Non-Indicted 16 member: Doshe becomes a false horse dispute?

Defendant 1: It is necessary to investigate the investigative agency.

Defendant 2: I will clarify all of the facts at the investigative agency.

* Nonindicted 7 Members

Non-Indicted 7 member: the president, the representative of Defendant 2, who was only the locked-man, the President, and the representative of Defendant 2: “This document has been translated into English and sent to the United States, and, in urgent cases, is delivered directly to the 8th United States Armed Forces and directly to the United States. And, in the inside of the Republic of Korea, why such a words “I are going to the books of the current fluence?”?

Defendant 1: The member of the National Assembly Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.?

Non-Indicted 7 member: the number of carings is required, on the other hand.

증인 피고인 1 : 전혀 없습니다. 전혀 말이 안 되는 얘기이고 어떻게 미국 부통령의 테이블에 그 서류가 올라갑니까? 이것은 말이 안 되는, 하여튼 흉악하게 꾸며도 대단히 꾸몄는데요. 내가 수사기관에 아주 홀랑 벗고 조사를 해서 이 내용을 하나하나 밝히겠습니다. 그리고 억울하기 짝이 없습니다. 저는, 내가 마지막에 다 안아야 될 과업이니까 이때까지는 피고인 2 대표를 단 한 번도 나쁘게 생각 안 했습니다. 내가 ‘사장은 우리끼리 못 되더라도 당신은 내 외신에 대한 일을 좀 해 주시오’하고 간곡하게 부탁해서 서로 반 합의가 된 상태입니다. 그런데 이런 문건을 터트린 것은 뒤에 틀림없이 음해가 있습니다. 제가 내일부터 들어가서 다른 일 다 제치고 누가 뭐 했고 뭐 했고 하는 것을 조사를 할 것입니다. 그것도 유능한 수사기관한테 조사를 의뢰하겠습니다. 그래서 왜 이런 일이 벌어졌는지, 왜 방송을 이러는지? 여기에 지금 방송을 6년 동안 사장 내놓고 다 내놓고 난 돈만……

The Chairperson Nonindicted 15 was the Chairperson.

Defendant 1: There is also a person who sets up money and makes it available.

(C) Appropriateness of the grounds for appeal

① Whether the testimony of Defendant 1 is false or not

Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to domestic and foreign sentiments and sent the documents to the United States in English. Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 was instructed from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, and that Defendant 1’s oral analysis documents were translated into the United States and sent to the United States. Specifically, around July 6, 2006, the date when Defendant 1 reported the launch test of North Korea, Defendant 1 entered the Seoul Central District Office (hereinafter omitted)’s Seoul Central District Court’s office of 10th century, and that Defendant 1’s oral statement, “The Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States, and the Government of the Republic of Korea,” written a revised document, including Defendant 1’s oral statement, “The Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Korea,” and written a revised document, stating that Defendant 1 was the first time before Defendant 2’s oral statement, and that Defendant 1’s oral statement was the first time before Defendant 7’s oral statement and written a revised document.”

Therefore, according to the above evidence, the court below and the court below lawfully adopted and examined the remainder of the above two persons' statements. According to the above evidence, there are S-1 through S-8 documents provided by Defendant 2 after analyzing the situation. The above documents combine the order of Defendant 1's "S" and "S-2" and "S-3" with the order of reporting, so that Defendant 1 may fill out the number with S-1, S-2, S-3. Defendant 2 reported the above documents to Defendant 2 by explaining the above documents' reading, and Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2 about the part which is not understood or doubtful. The above documents are presented as follows: the quantity of documents in the United States reaches 10 chapter 2 of the United States; the above documents are prepared as follows; Defendant 1's name and response measures against Defendant 1, as well as the following documents; and Defendant 2's statement and statement were prepared as follows; Defendant 1's instructions and response measures against Defendant 1, as a substitute for the following documents.

With respect to the launch of North Korea in 2006, the Korean government may request the Korean government to pay only the Korean money to North Korea, and support the incorporation of the Korean economy into North Korea, at the same time, check the North Korea and the Korean government at the same time, and lead to an effective policy after the sixth session. The payment for all transactions shall be made in kind, prevent forgery by preventing the use of USD in foreign trade, and at the same time preventing the use of USD in foreign trade for Korean small and medium enterprises, by preventing the diversion of USD 0, by preventing the use of the Korean sports support for Korean small and medium enterprises, and by weakening the anti-U.S. sentiment of the pro-friendly forces that interfere with the trade with North Korea. Measures to enforce sanctions against all financial institutions traded with North Korea will be the largest situation of the Korean government. If it is important that the preliminary investigation for the issuance of the preliminary investigation for the issuance of North Korea will be implemented openly once in the press.

In South Korea, there is a growing number of organized anti-Korean activities in South Korea, and North Korea is faced with difficulties, and North Korea is faced with difficulties.In this case, if the United States proposes the establishment of a five-party support organization to North Korea through the ARF, it will be the best way for North Korea to refuse to refuse, and support North Korean economy. In addition, since North Korea requested the settlement of ties, it is the most appropriate time for the Korean government to request Buy Poly, and the most good thing to understand the Korean government. The promotion that it is possible to provide more support to North Korea and all inter-Korean transactions should be settled in kind. And all of the sanctions against financial institutions in transactions with North Korea should be continuously presented.(S-2)

V.C. - Promotion of the United States priority over U.S. interests, emphasizing North Korea support through United Nations, and usfk continuously understand that usfk will follow flexible strategies. (S-4 cases)

㉣ 작전지휘권과 관련하여, 한미연합사령관에 한미 양국군이 교대로 취임하는 것도 검토할 것 - 한미양국군이 동등한 입장이라는 것을 보여주는 것도 한 방법, 한국군 사령관이 지휘하는 동안 비효율성이 드러날 것임, 한국 우익의 활동을 간접지원하는 계기를 마련할 것, 작통권 조기반환과 비용문제 거론. 핵이 있는 북한 정권은 존재할 수 없다고 경고할 것 - 일본의 북한 선제공격 가능성을 계속 흘릴 것, 일본의 핵무장과 군사력 발전을 보고하게 하고 실제 움직임을 보일 것. 공소외 17의 지지도 하락을 유의할 것. 미국영주권자의 북한 방문을 강력하게 심사할 것. (S-5문건)

The solution is that the position of the Korean government should be taken into account, and the international community shall prepare countermeasures to cope with North Korea's mass destruction. The sanctions against North Korea's illegal acts in the United States should be taken into account. If North Korea's illegal acts are punished by the United States alone, the proposals of the East Asia security community should not be overlooked that it is time punishment. The support to North Korea should be applied to Buy Pooly (S-6).

In light of the above evidence, Defendant 1 may recognize the fact that some documents among the S Languages reported by Defendant 2 were translated into English and delivered to Defendant 2 (However, according to the respective legal statements of the court below by Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 18, Defendant 1 may not be deemed to have been translated into Nonindicted Company 8’s directors, but may not be deemed to have been translated into S-3, S-4, and S-5 documents, despite the fact that Defendant 1 could not have been translated into Nonindicted Company 8’s directors, only one of S-1 documents is the original and one of the English translations and one of the translations is not the original and a translation is not clear. Defendant 2 may not be deemed to have been aware of the fact that Defendant 1 could not have been translated into the English language and delivered to the United States. On the other hand, Defendant 2, who was instructed by Defendant 1, did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant 1 would not have any more trusted in the English language, but may not have any more trusted in the English language.

However, in addition to the above circumstances, the court below determined that Defendant 1’s testimony is false on the basis of the contents of S-1 documents prior to revision, the collection of documents through other routes, the contents of the voice file, the contents of Defendant 2’s pocket book, and the result of inquiry into the contents of telephone conversations. However, the court below’s decision on this part is not acceptable for the following reasons.

Contents of the documents before the amendment of the Act

The court below determined that Defendant 1 determined the subject and deadline of the S-1 on the basis of documents before revision, and that Defendant 1 participated in the preparation of detailed contents with respect to S-1, but it is not acceptable.

In other words, the former S-1 documents are written on the top-hand side of the 1st century, and the following documents are written on the 1st Amendment of the 1st century, and the subsequent amendments are written on the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 3th Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 2nd Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 2nd Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment to the 1st Amendment.

다음, 수정 전 S-1 문건을 보면, ‘S-Ⅰor Ⅱ, Ⅲ. BS, 공소외 18 이사’(1쪽), ‘백- ◁◁◁, ▷♤, 비밀해제문서, 회고록 준비’(2쪽) 등의 기재가 있고, 제목이나 내용에 줄을 긋거나 제목에 문구를 추가하는 등의 기재가 있는바, 이는 피고인 2가 최종본 작성을 위하여 자필로 덧붙여 기재한 것으로, ‘ ◁◁◁’, ‘ ▷♤’( 피고인 1은 공소외 19와 공소외 20 사이에 마음대로 자신의 별명을 ‘ ◁◁◁’, ‘ ▷◈’이라고 불렀으므로, ‘ ▷♤’은 피고인 1을 지칭하는 ‘ ▷◈’의 오기이고, 이러한 별명은 공소외 19가 피고인 2에게 알려주었을 것으로 추측된다고 주장한다)이라는 피고인 1의 별칭은 피고인 2가 반드시 피고인 1로부터 직접 들어야만 알 수 있는 것이라고 할 수 없을 뿐 아니라 나머지 기재들도 피고인 1이 지시하거나 알려주어야만 작성할 수 있는 것이라고 볼 수 없다. 한편, 피고인 1이 피고인 2의 영문 앞글자 ‘S’와 보고의 순서를 조합하여 S-1, S-2, S-3 등으로 번호를 매기도록 한 것은 앞서 본 바와 같으나, 위 수정 전 S-1 문건에 피고인 2가 ‘S-Ⅰor Ⅱ, Ⅲ’이라고 기재한 것을 가지고 위 나머지 기재들이 모두 피고인 1의 지시에 따라 기재된 것이라고 추단할 수는 없다.

In addition, Defendant 2’s submission of documents contains three documents with the title “S-1 documents before revision, S-1 documents after revision, and “1.1 documents” (hereinafter “documents”). Defendant 2, at the court of the lower court, said documents were kept in his own computer. Defendant 2, after revision, stated that Defendant 1’s submission of documents was made in his front of the three documents, and S-1 documents were finally offered to Defendant 1. However, after revision, Defendant 2’s statement was written in S-1, stating that Defendant 2 did not appear to have been prepared after revision of the documents, but Defendant 2’s statement and statement that Defendant 1 did not appear to have been made in his front of the inspection. Defendant 2, despite having been aware that Defendant 2’s statement and statement that Defendant 1 did not appear to have been made in his front of the inspection of the State administration, Defendant 2’s oral statement and statement that Defendant 2-1 had no credibility.

Therefore, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below that Defendant 1 participated in considerable part in the preparation of the detailed contents of S-1 documents based on the contents of S-1 documents before revision.

The fact that documents were collected through a different course of war

ⓐ 원심은, 피고인 1이 피고인 2로부터 S문건을 보고받던 기간에 이와는 별개로 ◐◐◐◐당 총재 비서실장이었던 공소외 21로부터 ‘정국동향’이라는 제목의 문건을, ♡♡♡당 공소외 22 국회의원의 보좌관 공소외 23으로부터 ‘ ♡♡♡당 빅3, 2007년 대선경쟁력 분석 -실증적 분석을 중심으로-’, ‘북핵관련 정세분석’이라는 제목의 각 문건을 각 전달받은 사실이 있음을 이유로, 피고인 1이 마찬가지로 피고인 2를 통해서도 정세분석 문건을 수집하기 위하여 구체적인 내용에 관한 문건의 작성을 지시한 것으로 보인다고 판단하였다.

However, Defendant 1 received the above documents from Non-Indicted 21 and 23, and all of the above documents are the nuclear crisis, Korea-U.S. relationship, and domestic political situation as in Smun case. Defendant 1 made a copy of the above documents and delivered them to Defendant 2 again. The above “state trend” documents and S-5 documents are the same as in August 29, 2006 and are similar to those pertaining to the right to carry out various exhibition operations. The above “S-7 documents” and “S-7 documents” preparation date are close to October 11 and 13, 2006, respectively, and their contents are similar to that related to the North Korean nuclear test. Even if considering the circumstances decided by the court below, the court below’s decision that Defendant 21 and Non-Indicted 23 prepared the above documents to Defendant 1, and it cannot be accepted that Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to make a further statement, and it cannot be acknowledged that Defendant 1 did not have any further received the above instructions.

(b) In addition, the court below held that, as a result of the search and seizure of Nonindicted Company 8’s visa, Defendant 1 prepared or collected various reports on the domestic political situation, North Korea, and U.S.-related newspaper articles, etc. on various routes, and during that process, Defendant 2 also ordered Defendant 2 to prepare relevant documents, but this part of the judgment is not acceptable.

In other words, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including Nonindicted 19’s statement at the lower court and the trial court, the prosecutor obtained a warrant of search and seizure from a judge, and seized articles in possession of Defendant 1, Nonindicted 19, 24, and 25, etc. in executing the warrant on January 12, 207. The prosecutor did not present the warrant of search and seizure and identification to the possessor, and the prosecutor provided the search and seizure warrant to the one director of Nonindicted Company 8 while seizing the articles of Defendant 1. The prosecutor did not appear to have participated in Nonindicted 27 on January 12, 207, as well as Nonindicted 27 on which Nonindicted 4 had no record of search and seizure from the Seoul High Court (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 2’s dwelling), and stated that the search and seizure warrant was an unlawful seizure warrant of Nonindicted Party 1, 207, which was issued by Nonindicted Party 4, as recorded in the above warrant of search and seizure as evidence No. 9-1, as stated in the warrant of search and seizure. 2.

Therefore, each entry in D-47 English translation (Evidence Nos. 80), documents A through Z-1 (Evidence Nos. 243 through 268), and seizure records (Evidence Nos. 57), D-47 detection report (Evidence Nos. 79) that are seized articles collected through illegal seizure cannot be used as evidence for conviction, and each secondary investigation report (Evidence Nos. 83, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99) that is obtained based on such facts cannot be used as evidence for conviction.

B. Contents of the voice file

The court below held on October 16, 2006 that when Defendant 2 entered the contents of the conversation with the Defendant in the office of Nonindicted Company 8, Defendant 2 reported to the Defendant “the situation after the North Korean nuclear experiment announcement,” Defendant 2’s “documents” under the title S-7 of the Defendant’s “the situation after the North Korean nuclear experiment announcement.” As to this, when examining the atmosphere of conversation between the Defendant and Defendant 2, it does not seem to be a situation in which the Defendant received a natural report, even though he requests an explanation about the additional necessary part at the time when he received a report, or talks about whether he properly understands it, so he did not give any instruction. In light of the purpose of the conversation’s speech on October 23, 2006, the “data” that Defendant 2 reported to Defendant 2 by arranging it to mean a document of emotional analysis that Defendant 2 prepared repeatedly. Unlike Defendant 1’s assertion, it can be seen that it is a document that does not have any particular relation with Nonindicted Company

According to the statement in the appraisal document prepared by the National Scientific Research Institute, it may be acknowledged that there was no trace of manipulation or editing with the above recording material itself submitted by Defendant 2. However, according to the records, the above recording material was submitted by Defendant 2 with Defendant 1’s studs, etc., while the recording material was not presented for the report of S-7, and the above contents of the conversation were not known in front and rear, and it cannot be ruled that the above contents of the conversation were unclear. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be ruled that Defendant 2 submitted only the contents favorable to Defendant 2, among the above contents of the conversation with Defendant 1, to the effect that “documents were presented for the aforementioned reasons that Defendant 1 had no influence on Defendant 2” and the above contents of the conversation that Defendant 2 stated that “documents were recorded with Defendant 1’s speech and analysis as evidence,” and it cannot be said that the court below’s explanation of the above contents of the conversation that Defendant 1 had no influence on Defendant 2’s above.”

㉣ 피고인 2 수첩의 기재 내용

The court below, in light of the fact that Defendant 2’s book recording the contents of conversation with Defendant 1 at the time, contains the contents of Defendant 2’s instruction to prepare documents on Defendant 1’s explanation and domestic response related to the nuclear test background, etc., consistent with Defendant 2’s statement. Defendant 2’s form, contents of the book, and Defendant 2’s search and seizure results on Defendant 2’s own account that Defendant 2 did not appear to have written false information in the book in advance. However, the court below’s determination that the above book was unilaterally prepared by Defendant 2, and that the above book was “the chairperson” under the title of “the above book.” Although the content of Defendant 2’s instruction was stated in the book, Defendant 2’s instruction to prepare a nuclear support, BDA. The court below’s explanation that Defendant 1’s instructions should be stated or reported by Defendant 2, and the possibility that Defendant 2’s plans should be considered as evidence after the fact that the above book was not completely clear, and the court below’s determination is not acceptable.

The result of inquiry about monetary records

In addition, according to the result of the analysis of the monetary content of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the court below stated the result of the inquiry into the monetary content as evidence of conviction on the ground that Defendant 1 was recognized to have been called by Defendant 2’s home, office, and cell phone at the date alleged by Defendant 2, and that it conforms to Defendant 2’s statement. However, examining the result of the above monetary content inquiry, it can be recognized that Defendant 2 had a telephone with Defendant 1 at the date alleged by Defendant 2, but it is too short time to instruct the subject and preparation deadline, and it is also possible to find that Defendant 1 had a telephone at each of the above documents, and therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is not acceptable, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to prepare S-5 and S-6 documents.

As seen above, in full view of the testimony acknowledged in the above Paragraph (b) above, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2, who was in charge of Nonindicted Co. 2’s joint representative, to prepare and report the documents related to his domestic and foreign political affairs, and Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to prepare and report so-called “S” documents, despite Defendant 2’s answer, Nonindicted Co. 4 of the National Assembly member asked Defendant 2 to the effect that “documents were prepared according to Defendant 2’s instructions,” and then asked Defendant 2 “it is not necessary to answer to Defendant 2,” and Defendant 5’s National Assembly member asked Defendant 2 to the effect that “it was true that Defendant 2 would prepare documents” and “it was not contrary to the U.S.’s domestic and foreign translation of documents,” and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 to the effect that “it was false that Nonindicted Co. 5 asked Defendant 2 to have prepared documents, not written, and returned to the world, and that it was contrary to the U.S.’s domestic and foreign translation of documents.”

However, the remaining part of the facts charged, namely, in the case of “S-1”, which is the first written document by Defendant 2, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to supplement the contents of the order, and Defendant 2 completed it on the basis of its appearance and its completion. However, the court below acknowledged Defendant 1 as Defendant 1’s answer to Defendant 2 on the following grounds: (a) whether Defendant 6 presented the draft of the S-1 document where the contents of Defendant 1’s instruction are contained; and (b) whether Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to the purport, “I would like to bring about 10% of the entry into that note; and (c) it would be difficult for the National Assembly member to find Defendant 2 as Defendant 1’s answer; and (d) whether Defendant 4 made a false statement against Defendant 2 as Defendant 1’s answer; and (d) whether Defendant 1 made a false statement or voluntarily made a false statement on the basic direction to change what contents in the prior written document.” (c) The court below did not acknowledge Defendant 1’s answer to Defendant 2.

Therefore, this part of the Reasons for Appeal is justified only to the extent of the above recognition.

㉳ 한편, 위 공소사실 기재 질문과 답변 내용을 위 (나)항에서 본 증언 내용과 대조하여 보면, 위 공소사실은 항소이유 주장과 같이 국회의원들의 질문과 피고인의 답변을 진술한 그대로 기재한 것이 아니라 그 요지를 정리하여 기재한 것임을 알 수 있으나, 나아가 위 공소사실이 피고인 1에 대한 질문과 답변 내용을 변형한 결과 국회의원들의 질문에 대하여 객관적으로 사실과 다른 진술을 하지 않은 것을 사실과 다르게 진술한 것으로 왜곡한 것이라고 할 수는 없으므로, 이 부분 항소이유 주장은 이유가 없다.

(2) The lack of notification of right to refuse to testify and whether perjury is established.

Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs may refuse to testify that may cause a criminal prosecution, prosecution or conviction against him/her," thereby guaranteeing the right to refuse to testify, which is a kind of the right to refuse to testify, and the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly provides that "any witness may refuse to take an oath, give testimony or submit documents in cases falling under the provisions of Article 148 or 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act," thereby guaranteeing the right to refuse to testify. In addition, according to the facts acknowledged above, the "act of using money or goods as money and goods" (in the process of recommendation of Nonindicted Company 2), which was scheduled to be examined against Defendant 1 by the National Assembly (consect in the process of recommendation of Nonindicted Company 2), and "delivery of detailed analysis case" which was conducted outside the anticipated examination of Defendant 1, constitutes confidential information under Article 113 (Diplomatic) of the Criminal Act, and thus, it is recognized that testimony constitutes a criminal defendant 1's testimony.

On the other hand, Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "where a witness falls under Articles 148 and 149, the presiding judge shall explain that he/she may refuse to testify before being examined." Although the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly does not provide for the duty of disclosure of the right of refusal of witness, it is alleged in the grounds of appeal that the Constitution does not provide for the duty of notification of the right of refusal of witness. However, since the Constitution does not guarantee the whole right to demand specific measures to prevent damage due to the absence of an individual, the right of notification of the right of refusal of witness should not be guaranteed as the fundamental rights of the people pursuant to Article 12 (2) of the Constitution that provides for the right of refusal of witness, and therefore, there is no ground to recognize that Article 160 of the above Criminal Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly. Therefore, even if Defendant 1 testified and testified without being notified by the chairperson of the National Culture and Tourism Committee, the above oath and testimony are valid.

(3) Whether a person has committed a false statement or not.

In light of the facts acknowledged above, Defendant 1’s testimony as to whether Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to domestic and foreign sentiments, and the said documents were translated into English and sent to the United States constitutes a false statement evidently contrary to his memory, and thus, cannot be said to have no criminal intent to commit a false statement. In addition, examining the contents of the member’s question and Defendant 1’s answer, it cannot be said that the purpose of questioning is objectively obvious as alleged in the grounds for appeal, and even if Defendant 1 responded in the sense of defense that Defendant 1’s objection is insufficient, it cannot be said that there was no criminal intent to commit a false statement. Accordingly, this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

(4) Whether perjury is established in breach of the procedure

The court below also argued that the defendant's answer against the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of false statement under the above Act because he was asked about the "existence of defect in the process of recommending permission for the non-indicted 2 company" notified in advance as a summary of the examination in advance, and this is an illegal newspaper in violation of Article 5 (3) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, which is a mandatory provision, and the court below rejected the above assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the contents and records of the above provision, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error as

In addition, Article 5(4) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly provides that "the request under paragraph (1) shall be served at least seven days prior to the date on which the submission of a report or documents is requested, or the date on which the witness is requested to appear." In light of the form and form of the provision of this Article, restrictions on the preparation of answer data, necessity of preparation of answer data, and strict punishment when the witness is violated, it is reasonable to interpret this provision as a mandatory provision that must be observed as alleged in the grounds for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5531, Dec. 27, 2001). However, the request for attendance of a witness who fails to comply with the delivery period cannot be punished for the absence of the witness on the date on which the witness is requested to appear, separate from that it cannot be interpreted that the above provision cannot be punished until the witness makes a false statement on the date on which the witness is requested to appear on the grounds that it is a mandatory provision.

(5) Possibility of expectation

In order to determine whether there is a possibility of expectation of lawful act against the defendant, the possibility of expectation should be determined from the perspective of the average person instead of the actor under specific circumstances at the time of the act, and the right not to be forced to make a statement against himself/herself does not actively guarantee the right to make a false statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do10101, Oct. 23, 2008). Thus, there is no possibility of expectation that the defendant will make a true statement on the ground that there is a concern about criminal punishment when he/she makes a true testimony. Thus, there is no ground for appeal in this part.

(2) Non-fixed part

As seen earlier, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to domestic and foreign sentiments, and Defendant 1’s statement that the above documents were translated into English and sent to the United States. As such, Defendant 2’s statement of fact cannot be deemed to be false, since it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s statement of fact that “documents related to domestic and foreign sentiments were translated into a English language and sent to the United States,” Defendant 2’s testimony, original music, interview news, interview news, and news with personal reporters, which was distributed in the inspection book of state administration, was instructed to prepare documents related to the domestic and foreign sentiments through an interview with Defendant 1 at the inspection place, and the statement of fact that the above documents were sent to the United States cannot be deemed to be false. Thus, Defendant 1’s complaint with Defendant 2 as defamation is obvious, and even if it was partially an exaggeration of the reported fact, it cannot be viewed that this part of the facts was merely an exaggeration of the reported fact.

(3) Conclusion

(A) As seen above, the lower court erred by misapprehending part of the facts charged against the violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, and sentenced a single sentence on the remaining violation of the Act and the crime without accusation, and thus, cannot be exempted from the entire reversal of the judgment below.

(B) On the other hand, despite the fact that the prosecutor made a statement to Defendant 2 that Defendant 1’s 1-A (2) among the facts charged against Defendant 1 stated that “S-1 shall translate documents related to domestic and foreign sentiments into the U.S. and send them to the U.S.,” Non-Indicted 7’s translation into English and send them to the U.S....... The prosecutor asked Defendant 2 of the reasons why the above “S-1’s statement to the purport that “Non may cause her reliance to believe it,” and told Defendant 2 to the effect that he sent his her fry analysis to the U.S. in English and sent it to the U.S. court, the prosecutor made a false statement contrary to his memory, and 1-B. In order to have Defendant 2 take criminal punishment at a non-indicted 1’s place on November 206, 206, he did not request Defendant 2 to make a false statement to the public prosecutor’s office’s testimony and to make a translation of documents related to Defendant 2’s testimony.

B. As to Defendant 2

(1) Determination of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel

(A) As to the part on defamation by radio

Defendant 2 asserted that the lower court did not constitute a false statement contrary to memory while denying the crime, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as Nonindicted 28, 29, 30, and 31’s respective legal statements in the lower court and the result of CD verification by the lower court, the foregoing fact-finding and determination by the lower court is just and acceptable, and it does not change even if the prior meaning of “competion” is “influence and intimidation.” Therefore, this part of the grounds for appeal are without merit.

(B) As to the part of injury

① Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including Nonindicted 3 and 32’s legal statements and the result of the CD verification by the lower court, the fact that Defendant 2 took one time a week to the right side of the clothes of Nonindicted 3, which Defendant 2 had obtained permission to take pictures from the court, is sufficiently recognized. As such, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, Defendant 2’s right shoulder on the screen of Nonindicted 3’s video camera, is not entirely set up, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 was only a part of Nonindicted 3’s clothes on the right side of the shoulder.

② Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the evidence, such as Nonindicted 33’s written statement in the lower court, Nonindicted 34’s written opinion, and written copies of medical records, Defendant 2’s aforementioned assault may recognize the fact that Nonindicted 3 suffered an influence in the number of days of treatment and influence in the military register, and it is not possible to recognize the establishment of the crime of injury even if the degree of injury is the number of days of treatment.

③ In addition, in light of the above evidence’s price method, price-fixing body, price-fixing place, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., the Defendant appears to have committed considerable robbery upon Nonindicted 3’s intent to exercise the force of force against the illegality under the Criminal Act. Thus, it cannot be said that Defendant 2 had no intention to inflict injury. In addition, in light of the circumstance and method thereof, the above act by Defendant 2 cannot be deemed as a legitimate act under social norms or self-defense.

4. Accordingly, there is no ground for appeal on this part.

(2) Determination of the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal

(A) Of the facts charged of this case, the summary of the facts charged of defamation against Defendant 2, the violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, and the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation)

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 2: (a) she had been exposed to Nonindicted Party 1’s threat to Nonindicted Party 1 or Defendant 1’s franchising Nonindicted Party 6’s franchising that he would be at the same time after having been exposed to Nonindicted Party 6’s franchising. Defendant 1’s franchising that he would be at the same time subject to retaliation from Nonindicted Party 6’s franchising, and that he would not be subject to retaliation from Defendant 1 to Defendant 6’s franchising to the effect that Defendant 1 would not be subject to retaliation from Defendant 6’s franchising, “I would not be subject to any retaliation from Defendant 1 to Defendant 6’s franchising,” and that “I would not be subject to any retaliation from Defendant 1 to Defendant 3’s franchising,” and that “I would be subject to any retaliation from Defendant 1’s franchising or franchising to the said f.”

② Judgment of the court below

Defendant 2 was instructed by Defendant 1 to prepare a document of regular analysis. Defendant 1 appears to have thought that Defendant 2 would have been sending a document to a foreign country through his organization. Defendant 1 appears to have made a statement to the effect that Defendant 2 would have died of his organization. Defendant 2’s position understood that preparing and sending a document of regular analysis would have been an important task in the organization. Defendant 2 could have understood that the act of expressing such fact outside the organization was a reply to the organization. In addition, Defendant 2 requested the National Intelligence Service, the police, and private security business to protect the public interest before and after the formation of the document, and recorded Defendant 1’s statement in advance because it did not appear that Defendant 1’s aforementioned act was inconsistent with the objective contents of Defendant 1’s statement that it could not be easily seen that Defendant 2 would have made a false statement because of the lack of retaliation from Defendant 1’s above. Defendant 2’s oral statement and statement that it would have been inconsistent with the objective contents of Defendant 1’s written evidence or statement that it could not have been made.

(B) Judgment of the court below

(1) Criteria for determination

In cases where a public prosecutor is indicted for defamation under Articles 61(2) and 307(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007), the fact that the public prosecutor is false cannot be established by publication of false facts solely with the prosecutor's active proof that the public fact is true. However, in determining whether the above burden of proof exists, as well as with the affirmative proof of the fact that the absence of such fact concerns the absence of a specific act at a specific period of time and a specific place, the public prosecutor must prove it without reasonable doubt. However, it is more easy to prove and prove the absence of a specific fact in a specific period of time and space, while it is difficult to prove and prove the existence of such fact, such circumstance should be considered in determining whether the public prosecutor bears the burden of impeachment, and as such, the public prosecutor must present 20 years of false evidence to the extent that it is not able to present 90 times of impeachment, and the public prosecutor should present 905 times of such false evidence.

(2) In this case

In this case, the main contents of Defendant 2's submission of intimidation as above by Defendant 1 are the above audio recording file, especially the audio recording file with Defendant 1 on October 23, 2006, and the contents of this document are close to the monthly e.g., as stated by the court below. Two years olds and us will be close, and the two days will end. ... . . . . . . , "I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am we will am we am we am we am we am we am we am now we am we am now we will....... am we we am we am we am we am we am we now.......... we we we we am we am we am we am we am we am now.....

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, Defendant 1 and the head of the U.S.A., who recorded the above voice recording materials, as well as Defendant 1’s voice recording materials, cannot be seen as having been recorded in front and rear, and Defendant 2 cannot be seen as having submitted only the contents favorable to Defendant 2 on the day, in light of the aforementioned circumstances. Moreover, even if Defendant 1 and the head of the U.S., who used the above voice recording materials to identify Defendant 2 or their descendants, could not be seen as having interfered with Defendant 1’s internal and external activities, such as Defendant 1’s organization recording, and Defendant 1’s oral statement that “I will not be able to take advantage of the circumstances,” such as Defendant 2’s organization recording, and that “I will not take advantage of the circumstances,” such as “I cannot see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see it.”

그리고, 피고인 2의 진술에 부합하는 증거로서 공소외 1의 원심 법정에서의 진술이 있는바, 그 내용은 “자신은 2006. 8. 20.경 및 같은 달 24.경 피고인 2가 없는 자리에서 피고인 1로부터 ‘비밀스러운 일이라 피고인 2가 다른데 가서 이야기하거나 배신하면 전 세계에 깔린 우리 조직이 가만 안 둔다. 배신하면 쥐도 새도 모르게 없어진다. 나는 이 일을 상당히 오래 해왔다’라고 말하는 것을 직접 들었다”는 것이다. 그런데, 앞서 든 증거들에 의하면, 공소외 1은 2007. 12. 7. 서울서부지방법원에서 “ 공소외 8 회사가 공소외 2 회사 개국과 관련하여 중요한 역할을 수행한 자신을 의사에 반하여 퇴사하게 한 것에 대한 불만을 품고 있던 중, 공소외 8 회사가 공소외 10 회사로부터 공소외 2 회사지분을 매입하기로 최종 합의한 사실이 없으며, 또한 공소외 8 회사가 구 ◇TV직원에 대한 고용승계를 제한할 목적으로 직원들을 3그룹으로 분류한 이 사건 직원분류표를 작성한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 국회 문화관광위원회 소속 국회의원인 공소외 13에게 그 보좌관인 공소외 14를 통하여 공소외 2 회사와 관련된 허위의 비위자료를 제공하여 이를 진실한 것으로 믿은 공소외 13으로 하여금 허위사실을 보도자료 등을 통하여 공표하게 함으로써 공소외 13을 이용하여 공소외 8 회사, 공소외 2 회사 등의 명예를 훼손하고, 또한 그들의 방송국개국업무를 방해하였다”는 취지의 범죄사실로 징역 8월에 집행유예 2년, 120시간의 사회봉사명령을 선고받고 그 판결이 대법원에서 확정된 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이와 같이 공소외 1이 공소외 8 회사에 대하여 불만을 품고 위와 같은 명예훼손, 업무방해 범행을 저지른 전력이 있는 점, 피고인 1이 피고인 2도 없는 자리에서 공소외 1에게 위와 같이 피고인 2를 위협하는 말을 하여야 할 필요성을 인정하기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 공소외 1의 위 진술은 믿을 수 없다.

As such, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2’s above audio recording file has the physical strength to the extent that the prosecutor can prove the falsity of the threatening fact of Defendant 1 publicly announced by Defendant 2. In addition to Non-Indicted 1’s statement in the original trial, etc. without credibility, Defendant 2 failed to submit separate oral evidence until the investigation agency and the court below and the court below. As such, Defendant 2 is liable for publishing false facts and perjury because it falls under the case where he did not present any supporting material to affirm the existence of the above threatening fact. In full view of all relevant circumstances such as the content, process, time, status of Defendant 2, and anticipated ripple effect of the above statement, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 did not have any awareness of such falsity merely on the materials submitted by Defendant 2 with the vindication.

(3) Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below not guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "public disclosure of false facts" or "public disclosure of false facts" in the crime of defamation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out has merit, and this part of the facts charged and the remaining crimes which the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be sentenced. Thus

(b) On the other hand, during the trial, the prosecutor charged Defendant 2 with the violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly on April 30, 2007 and continued the trial in Seoul Southern District Court. On September 13:50, 2007, the Defendant, at the 1st floor of the Seoul Southern District Court located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, the first floor of the first instance court, where Non-Indicted 3 (38) had obtained the court’s permission to take photographs and reported himself/herself to the court in order to take the above case, and made a request to the victim not take the pictures of the victim, on the ground that he/she continued to take the body of the victim’s clothes on the right side of the trial, and applied for changes to the victim’s clothes with the victim’s clothes once, and thus, he/she became subject to the permission, and thus, he/she cannot be found guilty of the Defendant’s substantive concurrent crimes in this part of the former part of the Criminal Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by Defendant 1 and the appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant 2 are well-grounded, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

In fact, despite the fact that Defendant 2, who was in charge of Nonindicted Co. 2’s joint representative director, ordered Defendant 2 to prepare and report documents related to domestic and foreign circumstances, Defendant 2 prepared and reported documents, such as “S-1,” and told Defendant 2 that such documents were translated into English and sent to the United States.

A. On October 31, 2006, when the National Assembly member testified and testified as a witness at the inspection place of the Culture and Tourism Committee at the National Assembly's meeting held in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul National Assembly secretariat, the National Assembly member respondeds to Defendant 2 to the purport that "it was true that there was a fact that he made a document to Defendant 2", and Nonindicted 5 of the National Assembly member asked Defendant 2 that "it was true that he made a document to be prepared by Defendant 2", and asked Defendant 2 of "I would know that he would return to the world, not to prepare it, and that he would have made a s-1 document," and Non-Indicted 7 of the National Assembly member sent a translation into English and sent it to the United States.

B. On November 2006, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to domestic and foreign emotional ties through an interview with Defendant 1’s witness at the inspection place of the state administration, and Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to the domestic and foreign emotional ties, “There was no fact ordering Defendant 2 to prepare documents related to domestic and foreign emotional ties, and there was no statement to the effect that such documents were translated into English and sent to the United States,” and Defendant 2 received a false statement to the Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office on November 22, 2006, and received a false statement to the Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office on November 22, 2006, stating that “The document so prepared was detrimental to the reputation by pointing out false information that it was sent to the United States.”

2. Defendant 2:

A. In fact, although Defendant 1 did not have been threatened by Defendant 1 that “if a fact related to the preparation of a question is discovered, the organization would be mobilized to the defendant’s hand or the defendant’s hand.”

(1) On October 31, 2006, at the inspection site of the state administration, Defendant 1’s reputation was harmed by publicly pointing out false facts through distribution to members of the Culture and Tourism Committee, members of the National Assembly, and members of the National Assembly, and members of the National Assembly, and members of Defendant 1’s reputation, with the following facts: (a) on October 31, 2006, Defendant 1 made a document stating that “I would not interfere with this day or document; and (b) if I would give rise to this day or document, it would not have been domestically or overseas as well as from the international organization.”

(2) On the same day, at the same place of inspection as witness and testimony, Nonindicted 4 of the National Assembly member asked questions to the effect that “I would see whether I will do so without breadth during that period.” Defendant 1’s thickness reply to Defendant 1 “I would have been threatened so that I would see that I would see that I would see this out of 3, and up to 4 times, if I would see that I would see the fact that I would see that I would see the fact that I would be able to see that I would see that I would be free to kill, and that I would see that I would see that I would see that I would be free to reply to the fact that I would see that I would see that I would be free to give up to 3,000,000 won, and that I would see that I would see that I would see that I would be able to see that I would be free to reply to this organization,” and that I would see that I would see that I would see see that I would be 3.

(3) On November 7, 2006, Defendant 1’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts through an information and communications network by putting this content on the interview with Nonindicted 37 reporters, which is an Internet medium, “When Defendant 1 presents this day, Defendant 1 said to be “not only in the Republic of Korea but also in a foreign country,” and thereby impairing Defendant 1’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts through an information and communications network.

B. The facts are as follows: (a) Defendant 1 posted Defendant 1 to the legislative investigator’s office at the regular session of the inspection of the state; or (b) did not pose a threat to the legislative investigator’s office, for the purpose of slandering Defendant 1’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by radio on November 6, 2006; (c) making a contribution to the program “Is that Is that Is that Is that Is, Is that Is, Is that Is, Is, and Is that Is that Is, Is, and Is that Is, and these threes had been carried out; and (d) threatening Defendant 1s that I would like to read, “Is that Is that Iss that Iss that Is that Is that I would not have been locked; and (d) later, it threatens Defendant 1’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by radio.

C. At around 13:50 on September 18, 2007, when the National Assembly was indicted for violating the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court on April 30, 2007, and was pending in trial, Non-Indicted 3 (the victim Non-Indicted 3 (the victim Non-Indicted 38) on the first floor of the Seoul Southern Southern District Court located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Southern District Court on September 18, 2007, on the ground that he continued to take the pictures of Non-Indicted 2, the victim of Non-Indicted 3 (the victim of Non-Indicted 3 (the victim of Non-Indicted 38) on the ground that he/she had taken his/her body toward the court in order to obtain the criminal trial of the above case, and requested the victim not to take the pictures of the victim, he/she had taken them

1. The statements of each of the original trials and the original trials by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1. Complaint;

1. Minutes of the National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee;

1. As to the non-indicted 8's non-indicted 8's activities that cannot be understood by the chairperson

1. Articles output of each article;

1. Matters related to the S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-5's right to command operations, six normal summits, the situation after the announcement of North Korea's nuclear experiment, and the situation after the 7th U.S.-U. conference held by the Minister of Foreign Affairs;

1. English version of S-3, S-4, S-5;

[Attachment 2-A]

1. The statements of each of the judgment below and each of the defendant 2 and the defendant 1 at the trial court

1. Minutes of the National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee, and copies of oaths of witnesses of inspection of state administration in 2006;

1. As to the non-indicted 8's non-indicted 8's activities that cannot be understood by the chairperson

1. Articles output of each article;

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The statements of each of the judgment below and each of the defendant 2 and the defendant 1 at the trial court

1. Each legal statement of the lower court rendered by Nonindicted 28, 29, 30, and 31

1. The result of the lower court’s CD verification

[Attachment 2-C]

1. The defendant 2's partial statement in the original judgment and in the original trial

1. Each of the original judgments rendered by Nonindicted 3, 41, and 33

1. Each statement of opinion;

1. A copy of medical records;

1. The result of the lower court’s CD verification

A. Defendant 1

No. 1-A. False Statements: Article 14(1) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at National Assembly

No. 1-2 of the Judgment: Article 156 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2

Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act provides that a statement of false facts shall be made in accordance with Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act.

(2) Article 14(1) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly

Article 2-1(1)(3) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007)

No. 2-b. Defamation by Radio: Articles 309(2) and (1) and 307(2) of the Criminal Act

§ 257(1) of the Criminal Code

1. Formal concurrence (Defendant 2);

(2) The punishment of violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly and defamation between the crimes of defamation (the punishment of violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly holding heavier punishment)

1. Selection of a sentence;

Selection of imprisonment for each crime except for a violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly held by each National Assembly

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes Concerning Violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at National Assembly with the largest Punishment)

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

2. As to Defendant 2, the court below deposited money for Defendant 2’s victim Nonindicted 3 who was guilty of the facts alleged in the grounds for sentencing, the nature of each crime committed in the court below’s sentencing, the criminal facts, and the criminal facts committed in the court below, and the criminal facts committed in the court below. In addition, taking account of Defendant 2’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to each of the crimes of this case, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act

Punishment shall be determined as per each order.

Judges Jeong Young-chul (Presiding Judge)