Whether a document related to the principle of good faith falls under the category of obscenity prescribed in Article 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act when a university attends or graduated from a university refers to "nort", or where a book is lent or borrowed for the purpose of study.

The mere fact that a university or college student or a college student or a graduate and read or lent a document on the principle of decentralization for the purpose of learning, he or she cannot be deemed to have produced, reproduced or acquired, or retained, the expressive materials, such as the book "nit", for the purpose of facilitating the activities of members of anti-government organizations or members of overseas public relations groups, as prescribed in Article 4 of anti-public law, or for the purpose of forming anti-government organizations (including overseas public relations relations), or by other methods.

Defendant

Attorney Kang Shin-ok

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 73No7729 delivered on February 22, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the whole fact at the time of original adjudication from October 1970 to March 1973 after the graduation of the Seoul University literature, and held that the defendant as a student of a university, political division or college, or a student of a book after graduation or borrowed it for the purpose of learning, and the defendant alone cannot be deemed as having produced, copied, or acquired expressions such as "No-T" book for the purpose of pro-government organizations or members of a foreign country or members of an anti-government organization or members of an anti-government organization or members of an anti-government organization or members of an anti-government organization (including an anti-government organization in a foreign country), or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had an intention to benefit from or benefit from overseas public relations, and it is obvious that the defendant is a new anti-government based on the good faith theory, and thus, the defendant's idea constitutes an unlawful violation of the rules of evidence 14 and the records.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)