[반공법위반피고사건][고집1975형,237]
Whether it violates Article 4 of the Anti-Public Law to listen to North Korea's broadcasting at the first time and to allow another person to hear;
Even if a person listens to the broadcast of North Korea by radio for about one hour at the face of the head of the family and listens to another person living in the side for about one hour, such a person cannot be deemed as falling under Article 4 of the anti-public law, unless he recognizes it under the intention to benefit the North Korea leader.
Article 4 of the Antipublic Law
68Do1118 decided Oct. 22, 1968 (No. 3412; No. 4(5)1394 decided Oct. 28, 1975 (No. 1094); No. 231396 decided Oct. 3, 196; No. 510-8354 decided Oct. 2, 1975 (No. 2094 decided Oct. 28, 1975)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Seoul and Criminal District Court Branch of the first instance court (73 High Gohap117)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The gist of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant for the reason that there is no evidence even though it can sufficiently prove the criminal facts of the defendant in light of the evidence shown in the records of the case.
Therefore, in light of the records, it is hard to find out that the defendant, from December 12, 1973 to around 12:50, 200 to around 12:50, 3, etc., who listen to the facts charged, listened to the defendant's interrogation protocol of the prosecutor, the testimony of non-indicted 1 and 2 by the witness of the court below, and the statement of witness interrogation protocol by the police about the witness of the same witness, cannot be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged. However, in full view of the above facts, from around 20:50 on December 20, 1973 to around 1 hour, the defendant knew that the defendant, from around 20:50 to around 1 hour, he could not find any material to recognize that the defendant had known that the defendant's act of promoting North Korea, which is an anti-government organization.
Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the above so-called "the defendant does not constitute Article 4 of the Anti-Public Law" is just, and the prosecutor's appeal is groundless.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge)