Obstruction of Private Interference

Attorney in charge C, D, E, F

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) The summary of the instant facts charged is as follows.

On December 1, 2012, the Defendant, as N. 2, the 18th presidential election, conducted an investigation on the A. 1st presidential election report by the National Intelligence Service employees, with respect to cyber political participation and election suspicion cases (hereinafter referred to as the “National Police Agency”). On December 13, 2012, the Seoul Provincial Police Agency’s Telecommunication Station affiliated with the Seoul Provincial Police Agency, conducted a general supervision over digital evidence analysis of two computers, including Qnot North Korea, which were requested for analysis. On the premise that the results of the analysis were delivered to the T. 1st presidential election, and the results of the investigation are favorable or unfavorable to a specific candidate in the T. 2nd presidential election, the Defendant did not finally determine the scope of the A. 1st presidential election report or the results of the investigation on the A. 1st presidential election, and did not inform the Seoul Provincial Police Agency of the fact that the results of the analysis of the A. 2nd local police station’s digital evidence analysis and inform the A. 1st local police office of the facts.

① Ordering persons involved in Tpolice Investigation Team, including AG, to distribute news report data as they are, (i) post the news report data on its website around December 16, 2012; (ii) distribute them to the media at around 17.09:00 on the following day; and (iii) conduct the press hubing to the same purport as the news report result; and (iv) refuse to send all the results of the analysis of the Tpolice Investigation Team by December 18, 2012 after the completion of evidence analysis through the investigation agencies of Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, including A, and related persons; and (v) refuse to transmit the results of the analysis of the Tpolice Team to the public police station at around 19:30 on the same day and around 38:0 on December 19, 2012; and (v) interfere with the public official’s exercise of the right to access to the press report by abusing the contents of the printed data on the election campaign website, including those discovered during the actual process, without any justifiable reason for public officials’ exercise of such as telecommunication data.

2) Specificity of the facts charged

A) The prosecutor only presented a written opinion on May 27, 2014 without changing the indictment in accordance with the amendment procedure, despite the court’s request for the explanation that “the defendant’s participation in the Z, AA, or any part of the report materials and analysis reports has been concealed or reduced,” which is a matter of question whether the facts charged concerning the concealment and reduction in the report materials and analysis reports are specified.

B) The indictment of this case is understood to have been committed in the form of indirect crime by aiding and abetting police officers of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency who are under the direction and supervision of the defendant alone or under the direction and supervision of the police officer of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, since there is no indication about Z or AA's conspiracy or the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act are not stated in the indictment of this case.

However, in the prosecutor's written opinion dated January 10, 2014, it is questionable whether the court has a duty to determine whether the defendant was prosecuted for committing a crime in collusion with Z, etc. If the defendant was prosecuted for a single criminal act, the defendant asserts that "the defendant did not perform an act or instruct the act at issue if he/she was prosecuted for a single criminal act," but the defendant argues that "the defendant was not prosecuted for a single criminal act," in spite of his/her request for explanation that the court should clearly arrange the indictment as to whether the defendant was indicted for a separate criminal act, the prosecutor only stated that he/she submitted only his/her written opinion as of May 27, 2014, and that the defendant conspired with the Z, etc., and that he/she did not do so."

On the other hand, the defendant's argument that the defendant not only did the act at issue or did not direct it, but also that there is no specific report from accomplices, and that there is a need to deal with whether the other accomplices' functional control is recognized or not. Thus, if the defendant's conspiracy is prosecuted for a single offense, the court may recognize the defendant as a co-principal without any amendment to the indictment only when there is no risk of disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right of defense (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2977 delivered on May 28, 1991; 9Do1911 delivered on July 23, 199). Even if the court can make a decision without the amendment to the indictment, it does not always have the duty to make such a decision to the court.

Although the prosecutor asserts that the judgment of the court below omitted the decision on the public offering of the defendant, this is because it is not because the indictment does not contain any public offering, and it is not understood to the effect that the defendant conspired to commit a crime, and such a problem still remains in the trial.

C) In addition, the facts charged by the prosecutor are premised on the premise that the reported materials and analysis reports have been concealed or reduced. The defendant demanded to specify what portion was concealed or reduced from the original trial, and the prosecutor did not change the indictment even though the court of the original trial requested to explain it, but the prosecutor has to defend the fact that the portion pointed out by the prosecutor has not been concealed or reduced, and it is difficult for the defendant to exercise his/her right of defense unless the part is specified.

D) However, in the trial court, it is determined that the above issue was offered by a document and the examination was conducted, and there was no hindrance to the guarantee of the defendant's right to defense. Thus, it is determined that the part of the report was concealed or reduced, referring to the prosecutor's written opinion dated May 27, 2014.

B. Summary of grounds for appeal

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below, despite all of the facts charged, should be excluded from the scope of analysis or the relevance to investigation. The court below found the defendant not guilty of all the facts charged on the ground that the defendant's activities were not intentionally delayed and the defendant's activities were not related to the manipulation of public opinion, the grounds for concluding that the activities of the NIS staff are legitimate, and that the activities of the NIS staff confirmed as a result of the exclusion and analysis of the investigation team are legitimate, and the defendant's activities were conducted. The court below rejected the defendant's credibility testimony. (1) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was not the intention of closing the news report materials posted on the T police station homepage and distributed to the media, and intended to direct the NIS to address the suspicion, or that there was no intention of notifying the NIS staff of the outcome of the investigation. (2) The court below found the defendant not guilty of all the facts charged on the ground that there was no intention of the defendant to commit a crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Whether the facts charged constitute the constituent elements of the crime

A. Violation of the former Public Official Election Act

1) Summary of the facts charged

A) The prosecutor held that a specific candidate will be elected in the 18th presidential election.

As a result of analyzing the computer of staff members of the National Intelligence Service by taking advantage of their status as a public official, the government had a person in charge of the T police station investigation team post a false news report on the T police station website, distribute news report data, and conduct an election campaign by taking advantage of his status as a public official by allowing a person in charge of the National Intelligence Service to do so, and prosecuted the Defendant as a violation of the Public Official Election Act.

B) Ultimately, the issue is whether the Defendant’s act pointed out by the Prosecutor in the instant case constitutes an election campaign under the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014; hereinafter “former Public Official Election Act”) even though it is an act of publishing the investigation results on the illegal acts of government agencies that are not directly related to a specific candidate, rather than an expression of direct support for or slandering a specific candidate’s political views or achievements, or merely an act of publishing the investigation results on the illegal acts of government agencies that are not directly related to a specific candidate. Therefore, this is examined.

2) Relevant provisions of the former Public Official Election Act

Article 9 (Duties of Public Officials for Neutrality, etc.) (1) No public official or any person who is required to maintain political neutrality (including agencies and organizations) shall exercise any unreasonable influence over the election or perform any other act that has an influence on the result of the election. (2) omitted, Article 58 (Definition, etc.) (1) For the purpose of this Act, the term "election campaign" means an act that is intended to be elected or to make another person be or not to be elected: Provided, That an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be deemed an election campaign:

(2) No person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall carry out an election campaign: Provided, That the same shall not apply where a person falling under subparagraph 1 is the spouse of a candidate for a preliminary candidate, or where a person falling under subparagraphs 4 through 8 is the spouse of a candidate for a preliminary candidate or a lineal ascendant or descendant of a candidate. < Amended by Act No. 1164, Jan. 1, 202; Act No. 385, Mar. 4, 200; Act No. 2288, Feb. 1, 2008; Act No. 11887, Feb. 1, 2008; Act No. 11887, Feb. 1, 2008; Act No. 11887, Feb. 2, 2008>

3) Interpretation of an election campaign

(A) the limit of interpretation of an abstract provision of justice;

(1) Article 58 (1) of the former Public Official Election Act defines "an act of preventing or not falling into an election campaign" as "an act of preventing or being elected", but it is not clear that an act constitutes an election campaign only by itself is listed. (2) The Supreme Court of Korea held that the concept of election campaign under Article 58 (1) of the former Public Official Election Act and its criteria are "an active and planned act that can be objectively recognized as an act that is necessary and advantageous to the election or defeat of a specific candidate," and that the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate is "an act that is objectively recognized as an act that is advantageous to the election or defeat of a specific candidate," and specifically, in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign, the attitude of the act as well as the name of the act, namely, the time, place, method, etc. of the act is conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do301, Oct. 14, 2005).

According to this, in order to regard any act as an election campaign, the purpose, mobility, and planning are required, and among them, it is difficult to confirm the offender's intention as a very subjective element, so it is inevitable to understand the offender's intent through the "subject factor that is relatively objective element of "opportune" or "opportune" (see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hunna1 delivered on May 14, 2004).

(3) On the other hand, the concept of "election campaign" in the former Public Official Election Act is against the principle of clarity. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court frequently raised the unconstitutionality of election campaign. It means active and planned acts that can objectively be recognized for the election or defeat of a specific candidate among all acts necessary for the election or votes obtained for the election of a specific candidate or all acts necessary for the defeat of a specific candidate. The Constitutional Court has determined the scope of election campaign 201Hun-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-Ba-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U. 28, 1994.

(4) Ultimately, in interpreting the abstract concept such as election campaign, there is a need to set a reasonable limit on the scope of the abstract concept at the request of the inherent limit of the principle of no punishment without the law.

B) Classification from ‘act that affects the result of an election' of the former Public Official Election Act

(1) The former Public Official Election Act strictly regulates the participation of public officials in the election, compared to the general public. This is because public officials are likely to undermine the impartiality of duties when they engage in election campaigns or engage in acts that affect the result of election, and may seriously undermine the fairness and freedom of election than in the case of the general public by exercising considerable influence on the decision-making of the other party's voting.

(2) Specifically, there are four types of actions that affect the result of the election under Article 9(1) of the former Public Official Election Act, such as ① election campaign under Article 60(1), ② election campaign by taking advantage of the status under Article 85(1), ③ act affecting the election under Article 86, ④ act affecting the result of the election under Article 9(1).

Article 60 (1) of the Public Official Election Act provides an exception to the principle of freedom of election campaign (Article 58) on the ground of the person's status as a public official, and Article 85 (1) of the same Act provides that if an election campaign is carried out in the course of performing his/her duties, or is carried out in the course of carrying out his/her duties or by taking advantage of his/her right to command or to carry out his/her duties, it shall be subject to aggravated punishment, and Article 9 (1) of the same Act provides for the duty of neutrality of election of a public official (Article 9 (1) of the same Act, (4) Article 86 does not fall under Article 85 of the same Act, but is to prohibit and punish specific acts among acts that may affect election (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2690, Aug. 19, 2005).

(3) There may be doubts as to whether Article 9(1) of the former Public Official Election Act only has a simple declared meaning on the grounds that there is no penal provision. However, in the case of a general public official, the grounds for disciplinary action on the grounds of violation of the statutes may be the grounds for impeachment, and in the case of a specific public official,

In fact, the former president of the CP received a request from the National Election Commission to comply with the duty of neutrality for election on the ground of a violation of Article 9(1) of the former Public Official Election Act, and received a motion for impeachment on the ground of a violation of Article 9(1) and Article 60 of the former Public Official Election Act. The Constitutional Court decided that Article 9(1) of the former Public Official Election Act cannot be deemed a de facto and fundamental provision, and that there is no risk of criminal punishment (the Constitutional Court Order 2007Hun-Ma700 delivered on January 17, 2008) and that the statement at issue with respect to a request for impeachment trial against the former president of the CP constituted "act affecting the result of an election" under Article 9(1) of the former Public Official Election Act, but the Constitutional Court clearly decided that it does not constitute "election campaign" under Article 58(1) of the former Public Official Election Act (the Constitutional Court Decision 2014Hun-Ga14 delivered on May 14, 2004).

(4) Considering such system of the former Public Official Election Act, it is necessary to distinguish whether a certain act of a public official affects the result of an election under Article 9 of the former Public Official Election Act or whether an election under Article 58 (1) of the former Public Official Election Act is an act that affects the result of an election. In particular, the term "election" is a narrow concept rather than an act that affects the result of an election (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2932, Mar. 25, 2004; 2006Do9392, Mar. 29, 2007; 2006Do9392, Mar. 29, 2007), even if the former Public Official Election Act does not punish a public official under Article 86 of the former Public Official Election Act, considering that there was no intention to separately define the concept of "an act that affects the result of an election without limit."

(5) On the other hand, the Public Official Election Act was amended on February 13, 2014, and Article 85(1) of the same Act provides that "no public official shall perform any act that may affect an election, such as exercising an undue influence over an election by taking advantage of his/her position or status (Article 85(1) of the existing Act has been amended to Article 85(2)), and a penal provision was newly established to impose imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years or a fine of not less than 10,000 won and not more than 50,000 won (Article 255(5)).

The reason why the above provision was newly established appears as a social issue in the 18th presidential election, and the demand of the people for the political neutrality of public officials emerged as a social issue, but the demand of the people for the political neutrality of public officials seems to have been raised, but the former Public Official Election Act seems to have no separate punishment provision for the act that has affected the election result of public officials (see the C Qua Council Bill, which first proposed a partial amendment bill on December 11, 2013).

4) In this case, whether the defendant's act alleged by the prosecutor constitutes an election campaign or not), it is a matter of question whether the act of publishing the investigation results on the government agency's illegal act constitutes an active and planned act that is necessary for election campaign, i.e., election campaign, votes obtained by a specific candidate or acts favorable for a defeat or defeat, and which can be objectively recognized as an objective act.

B) As seen above, the election campaign should be interpreted as an abstract concept so that it does not go against the principle of no punishment without the law, and it should be distinguished from the act that affects the result of the election in the system of the former Public Official Election Act.

The indictment of this case only states that "the specific candidate is to be elected," but it appears to the purport that "the purpose of election is to be elected." If we refer to the written opinion, etc., there is no difference in the investigation announcement to the effect that the contents of the suspicion of a staff member of the National Intelligence Service slandered the candidate, posted a notice or comments supporting and supporting the candidate, and thus, there is no possibility that the evidence to discover the suspicion of a staff member of the National Intelligence Service would act in favor of the AD candidate. However, in order to determine any act as an election campaign, it is insufficient to say that the act was affected by the election result, and that the purpose of election or defeat is objectively recognized."

However, the purpose of the National Intelligence Service’s act that can be objectively recognized is limited to those related to a candidate or candidate who can be deemed identical to that of the candidate. At the time of the instant case, only the suspicion that the National Intelligence Service participated in the election organized for AD, and that AD candidate participated in the election in collusion with the National Intelligence Service does not constitute facts suspected of suspicion and facts subject to investigation, and thus, it cannot be deemed as identical to AD candidate. The act at issue in the CR case conducted by the public prosecutor is clearly recognizable that the content itself is the act in question, and on the other hand, in this case, it is difficult to view that AD candidate’s act could not be objectively acknowledged as an act in collusion with the purpose of investigation without directly or indirectly mentioning the AD candidate. Ultimately, as a result of analyzing the computer of the National Intelligence Service employee S. as a result, it is difficult to view that AD candidate’s act was an act in collusion with the purpose of investigation.

C) If so, even if based on the facts charged in the instant case itself, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was engaged in an election campaign, aside from the fact that the Defendant was "act affecting the result of the election."

B. Violation of the former Police Officers Act

1) Summary of the facts charged

In the 18th presidential election, the prosecutor had the person related to the investigation team of the T police station post false report materials that concealed the substance on the website of the T police station in order for the specific candidate to be elected, and argued that such act of the defendant constitutes a violation of the former Police Officers Act. Therefore, the requirements for violation of the former Police Officers Act are considered.

2) Requirements for violation of the former Police Officers Act

(A) the relevant legal provisions;

A person shall be appointed.

B) Type of conduct

(1) Article 65(2)3 of the State Public Officials Act was repealed by Act No. 1325 on April 17, 1963

At that time, there was no concept of electronic documents and Internet homepage at that time. Therefore, it can be a problem whether posting electronic documents that could not have been predicted at the time of the enactment of law on the Internet homepage falls under Article 65 (2) 3 of the State Public Officials Act.

(2) When a law is enacted, it is not bound by the intention of the past legislators, and it is necessary to interpret that it can be the most reasonable resolution in various cases that occur rapidly changing social reality by newly clarifying the purport of the legislation that is appropriate for the current legal situation, unless it goes beyond the limit of the principle of no punishment without law. Considering that Article 3 of the Electronic Documents and Framework Act on Electronic Commerce considers electronic documents as documents and public facilities are not necessarily necessary to be limited to physical facilities, allowing posting electronic documents on the website constitutes "an act of allowing posting electronic documents on public facilities, etc." as stipulated in the above provision.

C) The meaning of documents or books

For example, if the contents of the documents or books referred to in the above provision are not restricted, it would be punishable as the above provision even in a case where the documents or books are donated and posted to a public library to support a specific person in an election. Considering that Article 65 (2) 4 of the State Public Officials Act only provides that "act of soliciting or soliciting donations" and "contribution act" is not punished, it would be not for punishing such a case.

In the case of an ordinary purpose crime, the above article only provides that "for the purpose between 3 and 100" or "for the purpose of supporting or opposing a specific political party or person," and it appears that the act itself can be seen as an act supporting or opposing a specific political party or person in accordance with the interpretation of the grammatic interpretation, and in fact, the act, except for the acts in subparagraph 2 of Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act, constitutes an act supporting or opposing a specific political party or person in an election, the document or the book referred to in the above provision should include contents to support or oppose a specific political party or person in an election.

3) Whether the Defendant’s act alleged by the Prosecutor in the instant case constitutes a violation of the former Police Officers Act

Therefore, posting the news report data in electronic form on the website of the police station can be a form of violation of the former Police Officers Act. However, the nature of the crime is determined depending on whether the posted news report contains the content of supporting or opposing a specific political party or a specific person in an election.

C. Abuse of official authority

1) Summary of the facts charged

A prosecutor shall have the investigative team perform an act without an obligation, such as having the investigative team publish the results of an interim investigation, by having the investigation team do an act without any obligation, by refusing and delaying the request for response to digital evidence analysis results, and the above act of the defendant is alleged to constitute the crime of abuse of authority. The prosecutor asserts that such act of the defendant constitutes the crime of abuse of authority.

2) Requirements for the crime of abusing authority

A) General authority of a public official

In the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights under Article 123 of the Criminal Act, “the abuse of authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights” means the case where a public official unlawfully exercises matters belonging to a “general authority”, namely, in a formal and external manner, the case where the public official appears to perform an act other than legitimate authority, and is distinguishable from the case where the public official does an act that does not fall under his/her general authority. In addition, the term “duty” in the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights refers to a legal obligation and does not constitute a simple psychological obligation or moral obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2800, Dec. 27, 191)

In addition, in order for a certain duty to be considered as a matter belonging to the general authority of a public official, it is necessary to be based on the relevant laws and regulations. However, even if there is no express statement, it shall be interpreted that it belongs to the authority of the relevant public official by comprehensively and practically observing the laws and regulations, and where it is deemed that it belongs to the authority of the relevant public official, and where it is deemed that the abuse is sufficient to cause the other party to perform a non-obligatory act or to interfere with the rights, it shall be deemed that it is included in the "general authority" as referred to in the crime of abuse of authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do116, Mar. 10, 1992; 2002Do6251, May 27, 2004; 201Do1739, Jul.

B) The term “right” in the crime of abusing authority in the crime of abusing authority is not limited to the right specified in the Act, but is sufficient for the benefit to be protected under the Act. It is reasonable to view that it is not whether it is a right under public law or a judicial right. According to the relevant provisions of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, a police officer has the authority to investigate a crime, and such criminal investigation right constitutes “the right under the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights” (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7312, Jan. 28, 2010).

C) Examining whether the crime of abuse of authority constitutes the crime of abuse of authority even when abusing official authority and allowing the other party to mistake as a day on which the other party is obligated to perform an act that is not obligated to do so, the crime of coercion is the requirement that the crime of abuse of authority is "an abuse of authority" unlike the requirement that the crime of coercion is "an act of abuse of authority". Thus, it does not necessarily require that the other party be allowed to perform an act that goes against the explicit will of the other party or that the other party is obstructed from exercising his/her right (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do6966, May 26, 2006; 75Do2665, Oct. 10, 1978).

3) Whether the Defendant’s act alleged by the prosecutor in the instant case constitutes abuse of authority

A) According to Article 14(2) of the Police Act, the commissioner of a district police agency takes charge of national police affairs within his/her jurisdiction under the direction and supervision of the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency and directs and supervises public officials under his/her jurisdiction and the heads of national police inspection agencies. Since transmission of the result of the publication and analysis of the interim investigation is a refund for the national police affairs, the direction is a matter belonging to the general authority of the defendant who was N.

B) In addition, if the defendant issued an interim investigation, etc. to a police officer of the T police station with a false or reduced content to participate in the election, such instruction is illegal, and there is no obligation for the police officer of the T police station to comply with it, and the defendant did not have the authority to give specific instructions on the investigation of the T police station, and if the T police station instructed the police officer to send the analysis results to the end, it would interfere with the police officer's right to investigate.

C) Ultimately, if this part of the facts charged is recognized as is, each of the crimes of abuse of authority can be established against the Defendant.

3. The facts charged in the instant case are ultimately 'digital evidence analysis result, the report, news report materials, and press slabping were falsified or concealed, and the result of the analysis on the T police station intentionally delayed response and the response could not be properly analyzed. It should be assumed that the Defendant directly instructed the response or the accomplice shared the act by functional control. Thus, we first examine whether the aforementioned premise is acknowledged or not.

A. The portion that was false, concealed, or reduced in the report, etc. as a result of digital evidence analysis, such as the report, news report, and press slabping, 1) the report, etc. on digital evidence analysis

A) Basic facts

Inasmuch as the facts and determination on this part are the same as those indicated in Articles 5.7.7 and 10.10 (65-70 pages, 76-81 pages) of the judgment of the court below except for the following parts added, they shall be cited as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In particular, the key point of this case was that the prosecutor concealed and reduced the analysis team.The evidence alleged in this case is whether it was possible to determine the facts suspected of Q as at that time. Thus, the following is specifically determined.

B) Q’s main file discovered from Q’s computer

(1) The prosecutor asserts that, since the main file discovered in Q’s computer is an important factor to prove the political intervention of the NIS, the digital evidence analysis results indicate that there was a main file in Q’s digital evidence analysis results, and that Q’s main file was discovered from the main file, but the digital evidence analysis results indicate that Q’s report did not reveal the existence of the main file, and that Q’s ID used in Q was found from the UR analysis, the report on digital evidence analysis results were false, reduced, or abolished.

(2) 메모장 파일의 내용은 다음과 같다(증 제90호 중 일부, 증거기록 1권 387, 388쪽). 메모장 파일[_꼹씠_붿뺉_.txt]

0 변조IP???0 추천(누구나 가능)IP 앞 세자리 보고 중복 체크0 반대(회원만 가능): IP 중복 체크도 함0 베오베-> 밀어내기 밖에 방법이 없음-> 베오베 되기 직전 선동글 무력화(반대11)0 베스트-> 밀어내기 혹은 추천 1/2에 해당하는 반대표 획득-> 베스트 되기 직전 선동글 무력화(반대3)0 베스트 퇴출?-> 광우 미스터리 바로 퇴출...이유를 모르겠음...영악한 운영실태>0 운영자 임의 삭제 조치0 조회수 50 이상 게시물 수정 불가0 클린유저 운영0 보류게시판 이동-> 찬/반 기준 0/5,-> 클린유저 관리o IP신고,EXCT -> EY CCCU -> EZ(CV) CHCW -> FA(CX) CYCZ -> FB(DA) DBDC -> FC(CV) CKDD -> FD(DE) DFDG -> DH(DI) BVDJ -> FE CFDK -> DL(DM) BXDN -> DO(DP) DQ => 반대차단DR -> FF(CX) DS => 관리자차단<뽐뿌>DT/DU==DV/DU==DW(U)보배드림)

DV/DU==DK -> DLDW(U)DNKSLR클럽)DX/DU-DY/DZV(W, 12.7.12, 629)X(Y, 12.6.29, 570)멜로디/비짱/미스터비너스/하트봉봉올리브영 명인만두/질바이외부용1. FG | EA / EB2. FH | EC | EB3. FI | ED / EB4. FJ | EE / EB5. FK | EF / EB염색커트메이크업스쿨카오라클리닉쇼핑(옷가방구두)

(3) It is difficult to find out whether Q used the ID as written in Q, and what activities were done on the Internet set, from the perspective of the Q’s data file. Thus, it is difficult to view Q as an important proviso to prove Q’s suspicion. Ultimately, it is determined whether Q is important depending on the details that Q used the ID in the Internet set.

However, it was not found that the analysis team used the ID, etc. recorded in the main text file to find up posts, etc. on the Internet set up through URL analysis, etc. However, as shown below, it was not found that there were 30 or more ID only were included in the main text file, but the analysis team found 10 or more IDs remaining through URL analysis, etc. In light of the fact that Q Q used the said ID, as long as the analysis team identified the ID as above, it was confirmed through URL analysis, etc., the existence of the main text file and the fact that ID was found in the main text file, etc., even if it was not disclosed in the digital evidence analysis report, etc. as a result of the digital evidence analysis, etc., it was false or concealed that the report, etc. on the results of the digital evidence analysis was falsified or concealed.

It is difficult to view it as being.

C) Among the comments, etc. found by the analysis team through URL survey, the Prosecutor pointed out that he/she was concealed from his/her written opinion on May 27, 2014, and the determination thereof

(1) Posting a notice on the title "CG" in QG as the clinic of "CH" in QG, on the Lyn's Syn's Syn't.

(A) Contents of the comments are as follows (Evidence No. 10, 4811).

A person shall be appointed.

(B) It was understood that this article was excluded from the category of analysis because it was understood that the purpose of the National Security Act was not only the support and criticism of AD and S candidates, but also the purpose of this article was to criticize BD candidates, and that the overall National Security Act was needed. The main purpose of Q was not clearly revealed at that time, and if the article was interpreted on a literary basis, it may be understood that the National Security Act needs to be necessary. At that time, it was in mind that Q was aware that Q was an employee of the National Intelligence Service and was included in the materials confirmed by the analysis, and that at that time, Q was also in mind of the possibility that Q was included in the materials confirmed by the analysis.

(2) The words “EG” are inserted on the No. 10’s Scar’s website as the clinic of “BV”, and (a) the contents of the words are as follows (Evidence No. 10, 4881).

A person shall be appointed.

(B) The content of the comments is almost similar to that of the “CG” bulletin in paragraph (1). As such, the foregoing decision is invoked.

(3) The words "CJ of the Preparation of the CEH" are written on the Royn Syn's Syn's Syn't, Q, Q, "CK," and then the dissenting character.

(A) The prosecutor asserts that Q puts a character contrary to Q’s suspicion is a evidence to acknowledge the content of Q’s suspicion, since the notice is written in fact to express a dissenting opinion against AD candidates. The key contents of the notice are as follows (part of No. 90 of the No. 90 of the No. 393 of the evidence, one of the evidence record).

Title : CJ

A person shall be appointed.

(B) The content of the comments and comments are interpreted to support AD as shown in the title, and it is difficult to view it as a so-called Intelligent Norm that slanders AD, and the prosecutor seems to have confused with the notice "EN" (see, e.g., evidence records 7: 3760 out of the prosecutor's statement of AX twice the prosecutor's office protocol of the AX). The above notice No. X mentioned cannot be specific or specific because it does not include the notice that the police officers of the T police station confirmed it, e.g., the EH is not an ID for the use of QH confirmed by the analysis team. As mentioned later, the prosecutor argued that the facts charged of Q, etc. were confirmed by searching Q's Internet bulletin on the basis of it and posting it on the basis of it, and that it did not include this notice, and that it was difficult to view it as the first 7th of the lower court's ruling that it did not change the character of Q 1, 2012.

(4) The words "BZ" in the title "BZ" on the walky's walky's walky's walky's wal.

(A) The contents of the comments are as follows (6° 2750 pages of trial records).

A person shall be appointed.

(B) The content of the comments does not include any content related to politics except for the content of welfare policies. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to support that only the S Candidates consented to welfare policies and only opposed to AD candidates, and that there is no evidence to support that Q’s Internet bulletin was searched based on the result of the analysis, and the content of the comments extracted from Q’s Internet bulletin was related to the facts of Q’s suspicion, it seems that the analysis team failed to determine the publication as a material to recognize Q’s suspicion.

(5) Letters, etc. relating to the international net order of MB prepared by the 'EO';

(A) The prosecutor asserts to the effect that even though the analysis team confirmed that the 'EO' posted the 'EO' on the TB Round box, it was well known to the former president that the 'BE president' is superior to the former president, the prosecutor unfairly omitted it in the report, etc. on the results of digital evidence analysis.

(B) The original text of the comments was not produced as evidence or not written, and it was not specified. The article related to the MB Round merely appears to be 'BE President' to be 'WE President' to be 'the date recognized from a fake country if he/she patrols Indonesia or Thailand for five days' (see, e.g., evidence recording 2: 129 pages; see, e.g., notice (Evidence Record 9: 4840 pages) prepared by 'EK'). It is difficult to find that BE president is friendly compared to the former president. It is not a content related to the election. It is difficult to find that the 'EO' is not an ID for the use of Q Do confirmed by the analysis team, and that it is not related to Q Q police police officers who searched Q Round's Internet bulletin on the basis of the analysis result, and that this article did not include any issue in the article.

(6) Recommendation of "The reasons why Q is not eligible to be elected in the following substitute ships" as "CH".

(A) In the prosecutor’s written opinion (97 pages) dated January 10, 2013, he confirmed the fact that Q has recommended this writing that Q is a Slander, but it was also reported to the Defendant, but it was unreasonable to conclude that Q did not discover the facts of suspicion in the report on the results of digital analysis on the ground that it was not a comments on comments.

(나) 피고인은 이 게시글은 '우리나라는 대통령 단임제이므로 이번에 S이 당선되면 다음에는 당선될 수 없다'는 취지여서 오히려 S을 지지하는 취지라고 주장하는바, 게시글 원문은 증거로 제출되지 않았으나 당시 분석관들이 '그 글을 추천하면 안되는 거 아니야? 걔가 추천을 했어? 추천은 취소를 못하는구나'라고 이야기한 점(증거기록 별권 2권 178, 179쪽), 검사가 항소심에서는 이 게시글에 대하여 더이상 문제삼지 않는 점, 분석결과물을 전달받아 이를 기초로 Q의 인터넷 게시글을 검색하였던 T경찰서 경찰관들이 Q의 혐의사실과 관련되었다며 추출한 게시글 등에도 이 게시글은 포함되어 있지 않은 점, 2012년 12월 당시에는 게시글, 댓글 외에 찬반클릭까지는 쟁점으로 되지 않았던 것으로 보이는 점 등을 고려하여 보면 피고인의 위 주장을 배척하기 어려우므로, 분석팀이 이 게시글을 Q의 혐의사실을 인정할 자료로 판단하지 않은 것을 문제삼기 어렵다.

(7) Using Q as a number of clinics, changing IP into several Internet wraps, and posting the same article on several occasions by linking Q Q with several Internet wraps.

(A) The prosecutor asserts that Q Q has abolished and reduced it by omitting the report, etc. as a result of digital evidence analysis, even though Q had confirmed the fact that Q changed intellectual property by using private IP and posted the same article on the cirratized box in Q Q's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's' and 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's' on the cirat, etc. in Q Q's 's 's 's 's 's 's '

(B) In the event that the analysis team did not discover online posts, etc. that are sufficient to prove the facts of suspicion of Q, it is difficult to view that Q itself did not determine as materials to recognize the facts of suspicion, on the ground that Q itself did not have any intention to conceal the fact of suspicion. However, it is difficult to view that Q itself had any intentional concealment and reduction.

D) Data verified by the police officers of the T police station on the basis of the results of the analysis transmitted by the analysis team and the determination thereof

On the basis of the results of analysis received by police officers from the analysis team, the prosecutor confirmed comments related to Q as evidence records 9, 10, 4797 to 5268. In particular, the following comments are asserted as important evidence to acknowledge Q's suspected facts (the prosecutor asserts that the investigation right of police officers of the Tpolice station was obstructed because the transmission of the results of the analysis is delayed, so it is necessary to first examine the evidentiary materials for the notices that the police officers discovered in order to determine the importance of the main file in which ID was discovered and the importance of the results of the analysis).

(1) The comments written in the title of "CG" and "EG" are as shown in (c)(1) and (2).

(2) The words "CC" on the resumption of gold granc tourism posted on the wurg’s wurg’s wurg’s wurg’s wurgs

(A) Contents of the comments are as follows (No. 4895 pages of evidentiary records).

Title: EP (Notice on November 201, 27.)

본문 : 요즘 금강산 관광 재개를 하느니 마느니 니탓이니 내탓이니 참 말들이 많은거 같다. 근데 웃기는건 왜 우리끼리 투닥거리고 있냐는 거다. 금강산 관광이 중단된책임이 누구한테 있나? 이건 무고한 관광객에게 총을 겨눈 북한의 잘못이 100%이다. 그래놓고도 우리기업의 자산을 멋대로 몰수하고 제 것인양 쓰고 있다 뻔뻔하게.진상규명, 재발방지, 신변안전 보장 이렇게 3가지만 약속하라는 거다. 이게 뭐가 어렵나, 오히려 당연히 해야할 일 아닌가? 정부의 많은 역할 중에 가장 중요한게 국민의 안전을 보장하는거다. 그런 측면에서 금강산 관광 재개를 논의하기 위해서 정부는 신중에 신중을 기할 수밖에 없다. 금강산 관광? 좋다. 하지만 무엇이 먼저고, 무엇이 그 다음인지를 먼저 분명히 해야 한다.

(B) The content of the notice is a prudent defect in the resumption of the Geumsan Tourism. As such, there is no evidence suggesting that at the time S candidates consented thereto, and that AD candidates opposed thereto, it is difficult to view it as a valuable evidence to acknowledge Q’s suspicion, in light of the content of the notice itself.

(3) The words "CF" on the naval base of Jeju-do, posted on the walthy's walthy's walthy's walthm.

(A) Contents of the comments are as follows (No. 4902 pages of evidentiary records).

A person shall be appointed.

(B) Considering the situation where the prosecutor had been pointed out that the candidate avoided the opposing opinion regarding the prompt construction of the Jeju Gangwon-si Village Naval Base at the time, this notice was due to the due diligence from the side of the party. However, this notice is not a position of opposing the necessity of the naval base at the time, but rather a position of opposing the view that it was originally planned as a civilian military complex, but it was against the opposition to making all citizens into military service without sufficiently communicating with residents (see the Yonhap News article of December 7, 2012). In light of the same, it is difficult to conclude that the notice itself is a content that defames the S candidate when it is written (see the Yonhap News article of December 7, 2012).

(4) Other comments.

(A) The prosecutor asserts that the police officers of the T police station had access to the letter "S and democratic party direction division "S and stoping unfair competition," "S," "S," "S," "S, s, and s, if supported by the police officers of the T police station, s, ID?" by searching for a large portal search box on the ID, which was transmitted by the analysis team, was connected to the letter "S and democratic party direction division "CH."

(B) In light of the fact that the author of this writing is not QD as confirmed by the analysis team, and that the police officers of T police station did not have any act of Q with respect to this article on the grounds of the time limit and collective deletion (No. 61, Dec. 19, 2012, No. 9 and No. 4952 of evidence records), it is difficult to view this writing as a valuable evidence to acknowledge Q’s suspicion (if it is added in relation to the delay of delivery of the result of the analysis of evidence, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Q’s activity on this article was deleted before the analysis team completed the analysis and delivered it to the T police station).

E) Sub-decision

According to the big data theory, data that seems to have no meaning can be extracted if it is collected in large quantities. In full view of the data discovered through the National Intelligence Service’s overall investigation and the comments confirmed by the analysis team at the time after the instant case, it can be seen as part of the data that can be seen as the facts suspected of Q, such as the comments confirmed by the analysis team and the details of pros and cons, etc. However, considering the fact that the National Intelligence Service’s election participation was clearly confirmed at the time of December 2012, and the contents of democratic accusation were not explicitly problematic in addition to Internet posts or comments, it is difficult to view that the judgment of the analysis team that determined that the comments, etc., as described in paragraph (c), were not related to Q’s offense is erroneous or that the results of investigation were concealed or reduced.

2) Whether the digital evidence analysis report was false, concealed, or reduced

A) This is identical to V.10.(76-81) of the judgment of the court below (76-81) except for the matters set forth in paragraph (1) and the following, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B) As a result of digital evidence analysis, the report (Evidence 83, Evidence No. 322-327 pages) includes '2.' '2. Date and place of evidence collection': Voluntary submission (No. 10, 2012; No. 219 and 106(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Supreme Court precedents (No. 2009Mo190, May 26, 201) include the following items: 'the method of submission': 'the method of voluntary submission (No. 83 evidence collection date and place of evidence collection: No. 322-327)'; 'the scope of this case is 'the scope of confirmation only against SDR candidates' after October 2012; 'the scope of this case' is 'the scope of six.'; 'the digital evidence collection result' as a result of the analysis and analysis of digital information that it is inappropriate for the defendant to conclude that it is inappropriate to produce other digital evidence from the analysis and analysis of digital information.

3) As to the falsity of news report materials, etc.

A) The prosecutor asserts that the content of news report materials and press slabping was concealed and reduced that it is necessary to conduct additional investigation by obtaining a search and seizure warrant.

B) According to each of the statements in Nos. 3 (Report Data, steam Record No. 10-12), No. 7 (New News Articles, Evidence No. 1: 20-26 pages), and No. 509 (No. 20-17, Dec. 17, 2012) of the No. 3575-3583 of the No. 33 of the No. 501 of the No. 33 of the No. 5014, Dec. 17, 2012), the news report data of this case, press slabping content are as follows.

(1) At the end of the news report materials posted on the homepage of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, the phrase “to fairly and promptly investigate the contents of the accusation based on the following investigation plans: the results of the digital evidence analysis sent to the reply, the materials secured, the statements made by the persons concerned of the case, etc.” is written.

(2) Press Bring

(A) According to the contents of the press slabing as stated in No. 509 of the evidence 509, it is true that the present situation is the same as the situation where it is difficult to apply for a warrant, since the head of Telecommunication did not clearly explain the specific criminal facts as to the part of the application for a warrant among the contents of the reply given by the reporters after being asked from the reporters. There is a statement to the effect that the conclusion may not be changed until the end. As a result of the analysis, it is said that there is no possibility that the conclusion may be changed.

(B) However, there is no such content in a report on digital evidence analysis results. In addition, AG did not confirm the portal site's confirmation at the time of Bring. The reasons why AG conducted more than 40 or more ID need to be examined. They restored Q's computer hard disc and secure AD. Smartphone failed to conduct an investigation without voluntary submission. It also responded to the purport that "IG will conduct an investigation once evidence is submitted to the extent that it is possible to conduct a compulsory investigation, or when evidence is submitted to the extent that Q is secured."

In addition, among the contents of the press hub 7, which is an article written in the form of a question and answer, the dialogue with AGP reporters, among the contents of the press hub 7, which is an article written in the form of a question, there is no yet a plan to verify partial CCTV from reporters, and when the complainant submits clear evidence, the investigation should be converted, and the investigation should be conducted. In light of the arguments of the Democratic Party, it is not always specified where it comes to be known where it comes to be known. Considering the contents of the arguments of the Democratic Party, it is a plan to comprehensively review the analysis data, and if necessary, the second investigation is conducted against the accused reporter. In order to request a court for a compulsory investigation such as a warrant, a warrant, etc., it is necessary to contain a fact of considerable suspicion, and there is no doubt that it is necessary to present. It is not necessary to search comments on computers. The part of the Internet reply to the effect that it is not necessary to confirm the Internet access.

C) Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged above, as pointed out in the written judgment of the lower court, Q has been confirmed to have repeatedly accessed Q 40 parts on the Internet and repeated publication of a specific subject, and such publication did not clearly prove that it fell under the duties of the National Intelligence Service staff. However, even though it was difficult to readily conclude that Q’s suspected facts were proven only with the materials verified until the time, it may avoid unnecessary misunderstanding by clearly emphasizing the issues related to the scope of analysis at the time of preparation of news report materials and press hubping, and by indicating that it may be expanded based on this, it could have been avoided.

However, as seen in the foregoing Paragraph 1, it is not found until the evidence was found as a result of the digital evidence analysis that the fact of suspicion 2 was not found, in such circumstances, if the press was announced as scheduled to apply for a search and seizure warrant, etc. for additional investigation or delayed the press announcement for additional investigation, it may lead to misunderstanding that there was a clear evidence to acknowledge the fact of suspicion of Q Q, and it was not clear that the press announcement should be made within any part of the discovered proviso, and as such, it is not clear that the report materials, etc. were used as evidence analysis only for the computer hard disc, did not investigate the portal set, and there was a possibility of additional investigation, it cannot be deemed that the report materials, etc. were false or concealed.

B. The reasons why the response of the result of the analysis is delayed, and whether the result of the analysis delivered to the Tpolice Station is difficult to confirm and check;

1) The facts and determination on this part of the lower judgment, except for the parts added below, are identical to the entries in paragraphs 5.12.a. and 8.b. (b) (83-89) of the lower judgment, and thus, they are cited pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That the part of the lower judgment, however, that “it does not appear that the statement that AH calls with AH on December 17, 2012 and December 18, 2012, 2012, which was based on the grounds that AH’s testimony cannot be trusted from the 86th page of the lower judgment, is likely to have been made by the police line or by any other means, as the prosecutor’s assertion,

(2) The reason why the Seoul Local Police Agency rejected and expressed the response of the results of the analysis.

A) In addition to AH’s testimony, the prosecutor asserts that the analysis team refused to respond to the results of the analysis without explaining the reasons therefor even if the testimony of the AH was based on the testimony of the AI and AO, and that the AB’s legal statement of the court below that did not reply due to the scope of voluntary submission is not trustable. (b) because the AH’s testimony was a voluntary submitted article that was taken by the 'Analysis’ in the court of original judgment, it is an analysis because it was a voluntary submitted article that

However, I stated that the country becomes a host and the country of public trial (2°1026 pages of the trial record).

AO stated in the court below that "AB requested to change the results of the analysis, but it was not justified to ask "AB for reasons that it could not give rise to the result of the analysis (6°3004 of the trial record)" (6°3004 of the trial record).

C) Even in accordance with each statement in the court below's decision, it does not coincide with the statement of AH to the purport that the reason for refusal to respond to the result of the analysis was "a serious threat to national security would occur if the result of the analysis is leaked." Rather, it may not be ruled out that the above statement of A0 is a wrong understanding and statement to the effect that "the scope of submission can not be caused by a problem". In addition, it does not appear that AB did not explain the reason that "if the statement in the court below's decision was transferred as it was, there is no reason for AB to consider" if the statement in the court below's decision was transferred as it was," and it seems that the prosecutor did not ask A0 about the reason for refusal of AB, and even if the case was examined before and after the examination report of A0, the prosecutor did not answer it.

D) Therefore, the prosecutor’s above assertion based on the prosecutor’s respective legal statements of AI and AO cannot be accepted.

C. Whether the defendant was instructed

1) According to the records of the case, the fact that the defendant received a report from the digital evidence analysis team on the discovery and content of a medi and the contents thereof, the fact that the defendant instructed the Tpolice station not to leak the analysis situation, the fact that the defendant posted and distributes news report materials that did not discover the suspected facts, and ordered and approved the press harding. However, this paper examines whether the notice was reported on the specific contents of the posted materials discovered in the digital evidence analysis process, as alleged by the prosecutor, and whether the notice was given to the analysis team, etc. through Z, AA, etc.

2) Whether the Defendant instructed the Tpolice Station to conceal the situation and results and exclude the Tpolice Station from the process of evidence analysis

The facts and determination of this part of the judgment of the court below are identical to V.4.4 (36-41). Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3) Whether the Defendant forced the reduction of the keyboard to announce the announcement

A) Inasmuch as the facts and determination on this part are the same as indicated in V.6.6(2)(5)(57-65) of the judgment of the court below except for the parts added below, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B) The prosecutor asserts that the analysis team requested the police officers of the T police station to reduce the kids without hiding the content of the analysis scope limitation theory, 40 AD and DD. However, the prosecutor did not analyze only the first kids selection process and the reduction process, 40 kids where the analysis team reduced, but also selected and analyzed 40 kids and Done additional kids where the analysis team was selected and analyzed. The police officers of the T police station also received 44 kids where the Internet search was conducted based on the results of the analysis, and conducted the search by selecting NA, BD two additional kids where only 44 kids where the analysis team used the analysis team (AO’s statement in the court of the lower court, 6302 nasium). In light of the above, it is difficult for the analysis team to require the analysis team to delete kids not related to the facts of suspicion.

4) Whether the defendant was reported on the existence and specific contents of the notice discovered by the analysis team

A) The prosecutor asserts that the defendant received a report on the existence and specific content of the notice that the analysis team found (A.1C) but there is no direct evidence to acknowledge it except for the prosecution based on the defendant's status.

B) Rather, as seen above, notice articles, etc. pointed out to the effect that the prosecutor was concealed among the notice, etc. found by the analysis team, are insufficient to recognize Q's suspicions. The defendant receives a report on digital evidence analysis through various stages, such as AB, AE, AA, and Z, and the lower court's judgment cited V.13 (99 pages) as follows. In light of the following circumstances, the defendant did not receive a report on the contents of the notice except for the discovery of the main body file and the fact that there were many IDs on the main body file, the defendant's testimony [69.7.2 (2) (69,70 pages of the original judgment) and the defendant's assertion cannot be ruled out. 5) The prosecutor continuously argued that the defendant's statement to the Seoul Police Agency that "the defendant did not comply with the instructions of the Seoul Police Agency" and the defendant's statement to the effect that "the police station's instructions were not followed even after the analysis results of the investigation."

B) The Defendant was under the first interrogation of suspect with the prosecutor’s office and the investigative team should not be sent because it can provide information. It is recognized that the investigative team stated that it was subject to security (5°2670 pages of evidence record). However, the above statement was given to the purport that the Defendant responded to the purport that it is a security time for the press to ask questions on the reason that the Defendant would have to prepare a report in this case, and it cannot be interpreted to the effect that the above statement was ordered to maintain the security at the Tpolice station even after 'pressing’.

C) Relevant parts of the second prosecutorial examination protocol against the Defendant are as follows (No. 6 of the evidence record, No. 3262-3264 pages).

At the time of the prior statement, the door-suspect gave instructions to the main office and the Tpolice station investigation team to keep the security in relation to digital evidence analysis, such as the Seoul Office's Laborpt North Korea, and also issued instructions to the head of BH and the head of the investigation division in the course of analysis. Nevertheless, the YTN case was placed in the main office, so the main office reported that it would not make a report on the security time. Moreover, it is important to separately make a formal report at the time of reporting to the investigation office, and it is necessary to order the investigative team, including TWN police station, to report it as a hand-on report.It is essential that the investigation team, including TWN police station, was excluded from dar analysis.

The answer is that the investigative team requests analysis, but the computer analysis is a kind of appraisal, and therefore, it is thought that the investigation team should keep the security until the result of analysis reaches the end.The suspect has ordered the BH department and the head of the investigation department, etc. to not talk about the situation of absolute analysis except the above 'Analysisra'. In particular, if the situation of progress is wrong, it is appropriate that there is unnecessary misunderstanding and the other media will maintain the absolute security except for the analysis because it is likely that the analysis officer will leak the progress to the outside, which is the analysis.

The defendant's statement does not mean that the security should be maintained until the result of the analysis reaches the point of time in order to prevent the publication of the press, but it does not mean that the security should be maintained even after the publication of the press.

D) Ultimately, insofar as there is no evidence that directly recognizes the Defendant’s specific direction, it cannot be recognized that the police officer of the Seoul Regional Police Agency refused to respond to the results of the analysis even after the Bring under the direction of the Defendant, on the sole basis of the statement that the Defendant was under interrogation of each prosecutor’s office 1 and 2 times.

D. Whether there exists a public contest with Z or AA

1) Prosecutor’s assertion and grounds

The prosecutor asserts that the N, based on the following circumstances, the Defendant resolved to commit the crime and conspired with the Z of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency AA (No. 41-62 pages of the written opinion of October 10, 2014).

A) The Defendant received the position from the National Intelligence Service that “the Defendant wishes to promptly publish the results of digital evidence analysis.”

B) The Defendant has been entrusted with all investigations to AA, an expert of investigation who has been engaged in the field of investigation for a long time, and trusted the report on the issue, such as Z's 'Restriction on the Scope of Analysis', which is the origin of the judicial public notice, to proceed as it is.

C) Ultimately, the Defendant, Z, and AA, who is the brain side of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, received and shared all the information in this case, and the Defendant instructed the Tpolice station to not inform the analysis status, and the Z and AA controlled the analysis direction through the limitation on the analysis scope, etc. under the Defendant’s approval, and prepare report data to the police officers of the Tpolice station who are not aware of the results of the analysis by allowing them to distribute the report data and conduct press hubing.

D) If so, the direct commission of the crime was conducted by Z, AA, but Z, AA, while the Z, and AA did not have the status to lead the crime on the basis of their own interests and did not have such authority, the Defendant, who was N, approved by the method of reporting, verifying, and approving the content in the position of final decision-making decision-making authority, and thus, even if the Defendant did not instruct the specific method of crime,

E) Ultimately, the issue of whether the Defendant committed an offense depends on whether there exists Z, AA’s criminal act, and whether there was a specific report to the Defendant.

2) Determination

However, the prosecutor's assertion that the defendant conspireds with Z, AA cannot be accepted even if he/she examined the circumstances and circumstances of this case in the Section 4. The following facts, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has conspired with Z, AA, since it is difficult to recognize that the report, news report data, and press slabping was false, concealed, or reduced as a result of digital evidence analysis.

4. Circumstances and circumstantial facts of the instant case

Even if all of the premise facts in the above 3. Paragraph 3. are recognized, in order to determine whether the defendant's intentional act is recognized, it is necessary to examine what circumstances or intent the act was committed. Thus, the circumstances and circumstantial facts of this case are examined as follows.

A. As to the theory of limitation on analysis

1) The factual basis and determination pertaining to this part are the same as indicated in V.5.5(1)(41-57) of the judgment of the court below, except for the following additional parts, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) Whether the analysis team's clocks

A) The prosecutor asserts that the analysis team's analysis is beyond the authority of the analysis team to analyze Q within the limit of the phrase stated in the voluntary submission according to the theory of limitation on the analysis scope.

B) On this point, the defendant could not analyze the facts of crime in digital evidence from the court below to find it, and it is a unique duty given to the analysis officers. The analysis officers of this case refer to the contents of the complaint and Q's intent while setting the scope of the analysis, and then read the whole hard disc (including the deleted part) of the Nowon-gu and Switzerland tower, and argued to the purport that it was not recorded in the report on digital evidence analysis result because it was judged that it was not related to the facts of suspicion (the defense counsel submitted at the court below to the court below, 56-94, the summary of the oral argument at the court below, 10-14, 2014, and 20-14, which were submitted at the court below, and 20-10, which were presented by the defense counsel to the effect that there was no possibility of misunderstanding the contents of the complaint and Q's intent to exclude it from the evidence evidence.

C) We look at the issue of how to understand and analyze the suspected facts by filing a charge only to the effect that the democratic accusers at the time did not specify the methods of participating in the National Intelligence Service’s election, and only from B of 2012 to B of December 11, 2012. It seems that Q has to have determined how to understand and analyze the facts of suspicion. The circumstances stated in Qu in its voluntary submission are the contents that it was written in B of 2012 to B of 2012 and AD candidate election by December 2012. Since Qu did not clearly state his opinion, it is necessary to find out the content that it was written in the report of 4th, 63067, the first analysis team should consider the content and scope of the digital evidence of the Defendant’s opinion that it was written in the report of 4th, SD, 6307, and the digital evidence analysis team, but it is not necessary to find the digital evidence of 4th, 2014.

D) Therefore, prosecutor’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. The facts and determination of this part of the facts as to whether the Seoul Regional Office had determined the time and contents of the press in advance are identical to those indicated in V.8.(70-72) and V.9.9. (72-76) of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1) The factual basis and determination pertaining to this part of the judgment of the court below, except for the parts added below, are as stated in V.13.13 (91~99) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, they are cited pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) The prosecutor asserts that the judgment of the court below distorted the part of CCTV images and recording records, but the prosecutor bears the burden of proof in criminal proceedings, so it is not necessary for the defendant to keep the part of CCTV images and recording records from the beginning to the end without contradiction. Rather, it is sufficient for the prosecutor to raise reasonable doubt about the prosecutor's assertion on the part of other steams or recording records concerning the assertion that only a specific part of the recording is removed and consistent with the facts charged. It is against the legal principles of the burden of proof in criminal proceedings to argue that the part of recording is distorted.

(d) Current status of the publication and distribution of press report materials;

1) The factual basis and determination pertaining to this part of the judgment of the court below, except for the parts added below, are as stated in V.1.1 (81~83) of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) Whether the defendant et al. was accused

A) The prosecutor held that the judgment of the court below was only against the distribution of news report data, but this part of the facts charged argues that the defendant et al. committed an act without any obligation, such as deceiving the Tpolice Station and posting false news report data, and that the above facts charged are acknowledged according to the statement of the court below in the AG court of the court below.

B) The AG’s statement in the court of original instance, which the prosecutor used as the basis of, inter alia, is often about IDs, tights, and tweets on the main body file. AG’s statement in the court of original instance, which was written by the prosecutor, answer to “I think I would like to have been able to see if I received the main body file from the evidence analysis office prior to the announcement of the investigation results, it would no longer be possible to reverse if I would have received the main body file.” In the future, I would like to see that I would like to see that I would have been able to make an additional statement to investigate the additional materials (Article 1293 of the trial record)

C) However, at the court of the court below, AG did not consider whether the analysis team should report to the investigation team immediately after discovering ID, clinic, and activity walone, and did not have any question. In the process of the investigation, if the analysis team discovered these materials, it did not at all think us should report to us, and since she decided on the part in the prosecution investigation process, she should report to us (3rd 126,1267 pages of the trial record), it was confirmed only as part of the quantity from the investigation so far as she worked as the investigation officer, and it was difficult to conclude that the Defendant was aware that there was any suspicion of facts raised by the democratic party at the time of the occurrence of the issue, and that it was also difficult to acknowledge that QG 13G’s report was posted to the digital police station prior to 20G analysis report (3G 127). In addition, it was also difficult to acknowledge that Q 3G 3G’s report was posted to the digital police station prior to 2017.

E. Regarding response to the result of analysis

1) The prosecutor argues that the judgment of the court below omitted the decision on the reason for the submission of the result of the analysis to the Seoul Regional Police Agency, which is the superior office of the Seoul Regional Police Agency. However, the above facts are not only the contents of the facts charged, but also the judgment of the court below that the police officer of the Seoul Regional Police Agency requested the delivery of the result of analysis to the police officer of the Seoul Regional Police Agency, and that the police officer of the Seoul Regional Police Agency was rejected (the judgment of the court below 84-86 pages) and the decision of the court of the first instance 3.b.1).

Judgment is omitted.

2) The prosecutor asserts that it is contradictory to sending the result of analysis containing the contents deviating from the scope after analyzing the scope by restricting and analyzing the scope according to the theory of limitations on the scope of analysis, and then sending it to the Tpolice station. The judgment on this is not overlapped because it has already been determined in the foregoing paragraph (A) 2.

(f) Other:

1) No. 430, 443, 449

A) Prosecutor’s assertion

The prosecutor presented CDs (No. 430, 443, 449) stored electronic documents secured through search and seizure to the Seoul Regional Police Agency in the court below, and did not deliver the printed documents stored in each CD to the court. The prosecutor waived his/her right to cross-examination without any objection, and consented to the evidence examination by simple methods, and adopted as evidence. The prosecutor consented to the examination of evidence by simple methods under the belief that the printed documents separately submitted are legally admitted as evidence, even though they were not withdrawn to the court, and the above printed documents were returned to the court without clearly transmitting the circumstances and reasons. The prosecutor asserts that the electronic documents stored in each CD was adopted as evidence by the court below.

B) Determination

In the case of evidentiary documents, the Criminal Procedure Act provides that each evidence shall be conducted by reading or notifying the content thereof in the case of evidentiary documents, and by presenting the evidence in the case of evidence. In the case of text information stored in a data storage device, such as computer disks, it is stipulated that a certified copy may be submitted by printing out the text information so that it can be read (see Articles 292, 292-2, 292-3, and Article 134-7 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure).

However, the evidence list of the records of this case contains only the name of evidence Nos. 430, 443, 449 as evidence, and the evidence statement submitted by the prosecutor as evidence Nos. 430, 443, and 449 as evidence, and as to evidence Nos. 430, 443, and 449 as evidence, it is stated in the Seoul Regional Police Agency Cyber Investigative Team that the digital evidence related to this case was already collected from a computer and the relevant digital information file was stored in a CD, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the prosecutor separately notified the contents of the relevant digital information. Thus, it cannot be viewed that evidence Nos. 430, 443, and 449 as evidence was examined, and even if the defense counsel consented to the seizure of the digital information stored in a CD, it cannot be viewed that it exceeded the meaning of the consent that the digital information was lawfully seized.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion that an electronic document stored in No. 430, 443, and 449 was adopted as evidence is without merit.

2) The statements at AH’s trial court at the trial court at the trial court at the AH (AH’s trial court) are most the same contents as the statements at the trial court at the court of original instance. It does not seem that the testimony or objective facts of other witnesses are denied, and it does not appear that the Defendant’s instant facts charged against the Defendant are credibility enough to exclude reasonable doubt

According to the prosecutor's assertion, there was a conflict between the process of delivering the media of this case and the results of analysis and the Seoul Police Agency, and then there was a conflict between the TN police station and the Seoul Police Agency. The testimony at the court below and the party court of appeal at the time of the trial is in conflict with the testimony of police officers at the time of the

B) Even if all statements in family affairs, AH’s original judgment, and the trial court are true, most of the digital evidence analysis was related to the circumstances before and after the press announcements, and part of the premise facts constituting the instant facts charged under Article 3. 3 (3) merely pertains to the premise facts constituting the instant facts charged (a) (i.e., a statement that there was no call from the trial court on December 12, 2012 between the Defendant and the Defendant or that there was no conversation by telephone). In full view of other evidence, it is insufficient to acknowledge all the premise facts under Article 3 (3).

3) The CO’s statement at the court of the first instance at the court of the party, “The content of the Democratic Party’s accusation at the court of the party.” The National Intelligence Service employee was engaged in political activities and election activities by gathering opinions on support for and opposition to a specific political party or politician by inserting comments on the opposition party and the opposition party in the portal site, etc., and it does not restrict S, AD support, and a statement to the effect that CO was aware of the daily details of investigation by receiving a detailed investigation report, such as: (a) immediately after the media blping of the instant case; (b) the Defendant visited the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency around December 14:00 on December 17, 2012; (c) the Defendant was unable to conduct a forced investigation; and (d) the Defendant was unable to make a forced investigation; and (c) was responsible for the political issues.”

B) However, even if the statement at the trial court of the CO was based on the statement at the trial court, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant received a report from the analysis team to the specific contents, etc. of the notice in Q, and gave instructions or approval to exclude it from evidence.

5. Conclusion

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the public health team and the crime against the former Public Official Election Act committed an election campaign by taking advantage of their status as a public official. As seen in the foregoing paragraph 2. A., even if the facts charged in the instant case are based on the facts charged, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to be an election campaign, and thus, the Defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violating the former Public Official Election Act. Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes an election campaign, in order to recognize that the Defendant committed a crime of violating the former Public Official Election Act in the instant case, a report on digital evidence analysis results, news report materials, media slabs were falsified or concealed, and such act was conducted by the Defendant’

In light of the circumstances and circumstances, both the Defendant’s intentional act should be recognized. The same applies to cases where the Defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the former Public Official Election Act, since it cannot be recognized as seen in Articles 3.3 and 4.

In addition, with respect to the violation of the former Police Officers Act, the term "documents or books" referred to in the relevant provision refers to the contents that support or oppose a specific political party or person in an election. Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is examined, it is difficult to see that such contents are included in the report materials posted on the website of the Tpolice Station, and even if such contents are included in domestic affairs, it is not possible to recognize the premise facts (the same shall apply to the facts that constitute a crime of violating the former Public Official Election Act and the facts that constitute a premise). Therefore, the defendant cannot be punished

Finally, the above-mentioned facts should also be acknowledged in the part of the crime of abuse of authority such as posting false news report materials, and in particular, the part that interfered with the investigation authority is not only the above-mentioned facts, but also the result of the analysis of Tpolice station was intentionally delayed, and the result of the response can not be properly analyzed. It is also based on the defendant's instruction or the co-offender's share of act, and it is recognized that the defendant's intentional act is in light of its circumstances and circumstantial facts. The above-mentioned facts cannot be acknowledged as seen in Articles 3. and 4. Thus, the defendant cannot be punished for the crime of abuse of authority.

B. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted all of the charges against the defendant is justified, and the prosecutor's appeal to the effect that there is an error of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judge Voluntary Award