[간첩ㆍ반공법위반ㆍ국가보안법위반ㆍ구국가보안법위반][공1982.9.15.(688),770]
(a) A relationship between the application of an Act according to whether the knowledge of military secrets divulged to an enemy country is related to his/her duties;
B. The meaning of accepting money and valuables under Article 5(2) of the former National Security Act
(a) In a case where a person who has learned of military secrets in connection with his duties discloses such secrets to an enemy country, Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act is applicable, and Article 99 of the Criminal Act is applicable in a case where he discloses such military secrets to an enemy country regardless of his duties; and
B. The acceptance of money and valuables under Article 5(2) of the former National Security Act includes the case of receiving money and valuables, regardless of what is the purpose of receiving money and valuables.
A. Articles 98(2) and 99 of the Criminal Act; Article 2 of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980); Article 5(2) of the National Security Act
Supreme Court Decision 62Do24 delivered on April 4, 1962, 62Do24 delivered on September 28, 1971, 75Do862 delivered on May 13, 1975, 81Do194 delivered on September 22, 1981, 81Do2958 delivered on September 23, 1982
Defendant 1 and two others
Defendants
Attorney Lee Jin-chul, Kim Jin-ho, Lee Jin-ho
Seoul High Court Decision 81No3423 delivered on March 20, 1982
The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The appeals filed by Defendant 2 and 3 are dismissed.
1. As to Defendant 1’s appeal, the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel against Defendant 1’s counter-espionage, and the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel against Defendant 1’s counter-espionage, are examined ex officio.
Article 2 of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 318 of Dec. 31, 1980) provides that if a member of an anti-government organization or a person who was ordered to do so commits an act stipulated in Articles 92 through 99 of the Criminal Act for the purpose of fulfilling his/her purpose, he/she shall be punished by the penalty provided for in the respective Articles. Of these, acts of agents as provided in Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act are classified as secret information or books such as politics, economy, society, culture, and thought in the Republic of Korea, and if a person who was aware of the facts regarding his/her duties discloses it to an enemy, it constitutes a summary of the judgment of the court below that the defendant collected a new military secret as provided in Article 98 (2) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do28681, May 13, 197).
2. Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the evidence of the court below, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles and rules of experience as to the above defendant's crime against the above defendant's and defendant 1's statement at the prosecutor's office. It is clear that the defendant's protocol of examination of the suspect to defendant 1 as to the defendant's confession can be reinforced evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. Further, the court below's decision that the defendant's offering of money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the former National Security Act does not contain any purpose of receiving money and it is just in the court below's decision that the defendant's offering of the above defendant's opinion to the above defendant's 7th anniversary of the above facts and it does not constitute a so-called "public trial" under Article 5 (2) of the former National Security Act. It is so-called 7th of the court below's decision that the court below's decision that the defendant's offering of the above defendant's opinion to the above defendant's 1 was legitimate, and there is no error in the law of law as to 97th of the above defendant's meeting.
3. Defendant 3’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the above defendant's above defendant 1's main sentence in the Jeju-do North Jeju-do Chocheon-gun, Chocheon-do, on February 197, and agreed to attach his status to Dong 1's secret to Dong 1's status, which was located in Jeju-do North Jeju-do, and thus becomes an interest of anti-government organization. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact are just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the logical rules and empirical rules, and there are no evidences to find that the above defendant and the defendant 1's statement in the prosecutor's office did not have any arbitracy or it was not made under a reliable condition, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory in the court below's decision, and it cannot be said that the above defendant 1's statement in the prosecutor's investigation protocol against the defendant 1 can be reinforced evidence for the confession of the above defendant 1. The above defendant 1 did not have any violation of the rules of law such as 1.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and all appeals by Defendants 2 and 3 are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)