[국가보안법위반,반공법위반][집15(3)형,050]
The laws of "escape to an area under the control of a anti-state organization" in section 6 of the anti-public law
Even if a Korean citizen enters a third country or a third country and enters an area under the control of an anti-government organization, he/she can escape from the area under the control of an anti-state organization as prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-public Law.
Article 6 of the Antipublic Law
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 67No160 delivered on August 28, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67No160 delivered on August 28, 1967
All appeals are dismissed.
The 70-day period of detention pending trial, from among those pending pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in each principal sentence.
With respect to the attorney Lee Jae-con, the ground of appeal No. 2 by the legal counsel, the ground of appeal by the counsel Kim Jong-gil, and the grounds of appeal by the principal who was appointed by the defendant,
A person who escaped from an area under the control of an anti-government organization as provided in Article 6 of the anti-government organization in public law refers to not only a person who enters the area under the control of an anti-government organization directly from the area in which the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea is actually exercised, except in extenuating circumstances, but also a person who enters a third country or residing in a third country and enters an area under the control of an anti-government organization. Thus, there is no error in the application of Article 6 of the anti-government organization to the defendants, and there is no error in the original judgment in the application of Article 6 of the anti-government organization against the defendants, nor all the arguments which are attributable to the fact that the original judgment on escape from the area under the control of an anti-government organization by the defendant 1 was erroneous, which is the original judgment, in light of Article 83 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act
All arguments are groundless.
On the first ground of appeal by the attorney Lee Jae-ok and Hwang Dong-dong, in light of the records of the evidence established in the original judgment, the fact finding that the defendant was admitted with knowledge of the fact that the anti-government organization in the original judgment was admitted, including not only the confession of the defendant, but also the evidence of the situation, cannot be found to be erroneous in the judgment of the theory of the lawsuit in the original judgment, and since the original judgment is recognized by adding the statement by the witness Kim Jong-ok as evidence after remand, it is not possible to adopt the argument that the original judgment was not bound by the judgment of the remand. The arguments are groundless.
As to the ground of appeal No. 3
In addition, in the light of the provisions of Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentencing division can not be a legitimate ground for appeal.
Therefore, according to Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 57 of the Criminal Code, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.