2016Do3417 A. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( natives)

(b) Violation of the National Security Act;

(c) Violation of the National Security Act (Voluntary Acceptance of Money and Valuables);

(d) Violation of the National Security Act (Special locked and escape);

(e) Meetings, communications, etc. in violation of the National Security Act;

(f) Provision of convenience in violation of the National Security Act;

1. (a) b. (c) d. f. A;

2. A. e. B

3. (a) D. C.

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant A and C)

Attorney LK (Korean Charter for the Defendants)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015No2837 Decided February 3, 2016

May 12, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in the instant case on December 201, 201, on the grounds that there was no proof of crime as to each of the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s violation of the National Security Act (contributation, communication, etc.); (b) violation of the National Security Act (voluntary support, acceptance of money and valuables); (c) violation of the National Security Act around December 201; and (d) Defendant C’s violation of the National Security Act (contributation, escape); and (b) violation of each of the National Security Act (special escape) around December 20

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on actual risk under the National Security Act and the

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, the allegation that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the empirical rule and legal doctrine on sentencing constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the Defendants, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable is

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Gin-