207 Inventory 3 (a) Spy;

(b) Violation of the National Security Act;

(c) Violation of public law;

1.(a)(c) Al (37 years old, South)

2.(a)(c) A2 (33years, South)

3.(a)(c) A3 (Year 38, South)

4.b.(c) A4 (33years, South)

1. Defendant Al;

2. The defendant net A2's Da1 (65 years old, female)

3. Defendant A3

4. Defendant’s net A4-based C2 (63 years old, female)

Shohoho Lake

Busan Law Firm

Attorney Park Jae-in, and Park Jae-sung (for the defendant)

Busan District Court Decision 80Da448 delivered on October 15, 1980

August 21, 2009

Defendants are not guilty.

Each summary of the judgment against the Defendants shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

이 사건 공소사실은 별지 기재와 같은바, 그 요지는 피고인 A1은 ① 1971. 1. 27.경, 1974. 10. 13. 12:00경, 1977. 6. 6.경, 1979. 9. 10.경 반국가단체인 재일본 조선인 총연합회(이하 ‘조총련'이라고 한다) 간부인 C3의 지령을 받고 대한민국에 각 잠입하고(피고인 A1에 대한 공소사실 중 제1항, 제4항, 제6의 나. 항 일부, 제8항 일부), ② 조총련 간부인 C3의 지령을 받고 그 목적수행을 위하여 1971. 3. 중순경, 1976. 9. 중순경부터 같은 해 10. 중순경까지, 1979. 5. 중순경에 국가기밀을 탐지 · 수집하고 C3에게 이를 제보하여 각 간첩하고(피고인 A1에 대한 공소사실 중 제2항, 제5항, 제7항), ③ 1974. 7. 초순경 조총련 간부 C3에게 대한민국의 산업실태, 항만실정 등에 관한 국가기밀을 공여함과 동시에 군복무시 취득한 군사상 비밀을 누설하고(피고인 A1에 대한 공소사실 중 제3항), ④ 1977. 6. 4.경, 79. 9. 8.경에 조총련 간부인 C3과 각 회합하고 그로부터 금품을 각 수수하였다는(피고인 A1에 대한 공소사실 중 제6항 일부, 제8항 일부) 것이고, 피고인 A2는 ① 1968. 7. 하순경 조총련 간부인 C3에게 군복무중 및 업무상 취득한 군사상 비밀을 누설하고(피고인 A2에 대한 공소사실 중 제1항), ② 1970. 8. 중순경 조총련 간부 C3에게 육군병원 등 대한민국 군사시설의 위치, 종류에 대한 정보를 제보하여 적국을 위하여 군사상 이익을 공여하고(피고인 A2에 대한 공소사실 중 제2항), ③ 1970. 12. 중순경, 1971. 9. 초순경, 1972. 4. 초순경, 1973. 10. 말경, 1978. 5. 22.경에 조총련 간부인 C3의 지령을 받고 대한민국에 각 잠입하고(피고인 A2에 대한 공소사실 중 제3항, 제5항, 제7항, 제9항, 제14항 일부), ④ 조총련 간부인 C3의 지령을 받고 그 목적수행을 위하여 1970. 12. 중순경, 1971. 9. 초순경, 1972. 4. 초순경, 1976. 2. 4.경 국가기밀을 탐지 · 수집하여 이를 C3에게 제공하여 각 간첩하고(피고인 A2에 대한 공소사실 중 제4항, 제6항, 제8항, 제10항), ⑤ 1977. 6. 중순경 조총련 간부인 C4와 회합하고 그로부터 금품을 수수하고(피고인 A2에 대한 공소사실 중 제11항), 1977. 11.경, 1978. 2. 말경, 1978. 5. 초순경 조총련 간부인 C3과 각 회합하고 그로부터 금품을 각 수수하였다는(피고인 A2에 대한 공소사실 중 제12 내지 14항) 것이고, 피고인 A3은 ① 조총련 간부인 C3의 지령을 받고 그 목적수행을 위하여 1965. 5. 초순경부터 같은 해 7. 초순경까지 사이에 국가기밀을 탐지 · 수집하여 이를 C3에게 제공하여 간첩하고(피고인 A3에 대한 공소사실 중 제1항), ② 1966. 7.경, 1967. 9.경에 조총련 간부인 C3의 지령을 받고 대한민국에 잠입하고(피고인 A3에 대한 공소사실 중 제2항), ③ 1976. 6.경, 1977. 1.경, 1977. 12. 중순경, 1980. 2. 10.경 조총련 간부인 C5로부터 금품을 각 수수하였다는(피고인 A3에 대한 공소사실 중 제3항) 것이고, 피고인A4는 ① 1976. 2. 중순경, 1977. 1. 27.경, 1978. 1. 8.경 조총련 간부인 C3로부터 금품을 각 수수하고(피고인 A4에 대한 공소사실 중 제1항), ② 피고인 A1이 C3을 계속 접촉하고 회합 및 금품수수한 사실을 인지하고도 이를 수사정보기관에게 고지하지 아니하였다는(피고인 A4에 대한 공소사실 중 제2항) 것이다.

2. Defendant A1, A3, and the defense counsel’s assertion: (a) Defendant A1 and A4 received some money from Defendant A3, and Defendant A3 received some money from Defendant C5; however, there is no evidence to prove that C3 or C5 was an anti-government organization member; and (b) such Defendants’ statement alone cannot be acknowledged as having received money from members of an anti-government organization.

In addition, even though there is a fact that the Defendants left the Republic of Korea in Japan and met C3, C5, C4, etc., the Defendants did not detect and collect national secrets or meet with the members of the Cho general for the purpose of locked into the Republic of Korea or having been ordered to do so, and they did not divulge military secrets and grant military benefits.

Defendant A1 was prepared on February 25, 1980; Defendant A4 was detained on February 27, 1980; Defendant A2 was arrested on March 7, 1980; Defendant A3 was forced by the public prosecutor, and on March 24, 1980; and Defendant A3 was drafted on May 30, 1980; and evidence such as suspect interrogation protocol, which led to the confession of all the facts charged by the police and the prosecutor before the prosecution was prosecuted on May 30, 1980. This was not only illegal confinement of the Defendants was issued on May 2 or 3, 1980 after the Defendants were forced to be detained until the arrest warrant was issued on May 2 or 3, 1980; Defendant A2 was threatened with adviser and intimidation who had been investigated on the public prosecutor's office during the period of detention; Defendant A3 was denied the criminal facts after the Defendants sent to the prosecutor's office; and Defendants and the Defendants continued to make a false statement to the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office.

Documentary evidence cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt because its contents are different from facts, and it should be premised on the fact that C3, C5, C4, etc. are the full-time officer in order to recognize the facts charged in this case. There is no evidence to prove such facts, and since the testimony of the witness in the trial of the case subject to reexamination is different from objective facts, it cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt.

3. Determination

A. Evidence without admissibility (1) Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants, each of the Defendants’ statements and self-written statements prepared in the police investigation process

The above evidence is inadmissible since it was not recognized by the defendants or their defense counsel.

(2) Each police's protocol of interrogation as to C6, each police's interrogation protocol as to C7 (20 pages), C8, C8, and C9, each police's interrogation protocol as to C6, C10, C11, and C9, each prosecutor's protocol as to C12, C13, C10, C14, C11, and C15 (investigative Records 2961 page), and each police's protocol as to C14, A14, C7, C8, C11, and C28

The above evidence is inadmissible since the defendants did not agree to use it as evidence, and it was not proved by the statement of the person making the original statement.

(3) A report on the evaluation of the police (Investigation Record 450 pages), a request for investigation of the police (Investigation Record 466 pages), a report on evaluation of the police's official activities and a written approval for official activities (Investigation Record 481, 489 pages), a report on the progress of the police's official activities (Investigation Record 490 pages), a report on the progress of the police's official activities and a copy of the investigation approval (Investigation Record 513, 521 pages), a list of seizures, a copy of the investigation approval (Investigation Record 513, 521 pages),

The above evidence is without the consent of the defendants to be admitted as evidence, and it is not proved to be genuine by the testimony of the maker (the copy of the protocol shall not be proved as to the existence of the original copy).

(4) In full view of the defendants A1 and A3's statements at the court of first instance in the case subject to review, the defendants' statements at the court of first instance in the case subject to review, and the past management committee for truth and reconciliation (hereinafter "the committee")'s statements as to C1, C17, C18, C19, and C16 in the investigation records, the defendants' statements were conducted illegally during the period from the end of February 1980 to the end of March 1980, and were investigated by the Busan police station's office in the manner that they can not be able to open the police station's gate to the public prosecutor's office's gate by putting the defendant's gate up to the end of May 2, 1980 when they were illegally detained, or after putting the police station's gate back to the public prosecutor's gate, the Busan police station's gate's gate was found to be hard to open and open to the public prosecutor's office's gate.

In a case where the defendant made a confession without voluntariness due to cruel acts at an investigative agency prior to the prosecutor’s investigation agency, including adviser, and thereafter made a confession of the same contents even at the investigation stage of the prosecutor’s investigation, even if there was no coercion to make a confession prior to the prosecutor’s investigation stage, the confession prior to the prosecutor’s investigation does not have to be considered as a confession without voluntariness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2409, Nov. 24, 1992; 81Do2160, Oct. 13, 1981). As seen earlier, as long as the defendants were forced to make a confession for more than one month during the police investigation stage immediately after the illegal confinement of the police officers, and made a harsh statement after being forced to make a confession, and as long as such voluntariness psychological state continues to exist until the prosecutor’s office at the time of investigation, the confession at the prosecutor’s office and also is inadmissible

B. The evidence admitted as evidence is comprised of C17, C18, C20, C21, C22’s statements in this Court, the Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial records of the case subject to reexamination, the second trial records of the case subject to reexamination, C9, C11, C10, and C6’s statements in the second trial records of the case subject to reexamination, C23’s statements in the 6th trial records of the judgment subject to reexamination, the police interrogation protocol of C24 regarding C24, and each verification protocol (a investigation record 298, 3018, 3069 page).

First, C17, C18, C20, C21, and C22 are the statements of police officers involved in the investigation conducted by illegal confinement of the Defendants and the adviser, etc., and their credibility cannot be granted. Thus, they cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt against the Defendants.

C9’s statement is merely a statement made by Defendant A3’s witness of a espionage by photographing the Suwon Airfield. However, according to the testimony in the Busan District Court case No. 98Gadan47203, C9 was merely a statement made by an electrical adviser, etc. after the illegal act was committed in the public room of the police station in Busan City, and forced him to make a false statement with the same content as in the court, and it is difficult to believe that the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to find the Defendants guilty of charges.

Meanwhile, Defendant A1, A3, and A4 recognized the fact that part of the money and valuables were received from C3 or A4 in the first instance court of the case subject to review, but it is difficult to recognize that Defendant A3 received money and valuables from members of the anti-government organization even if Defendant A3 received money and valuables from the Korean national registered as a Korean national residing abroad. In addition, the crime of receiving money and valuables under the National Security Act is established only when there is a clear danger that may endanger the national existence and security or democratic fundamental order (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 89HunGa113, Apr. 2, 190). Defendant A1 and A4 did not have any evidence to recognize that the delivery of money and valuables was a member of the anti-government organization or a person who received it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the delivery of money and valuables to Defendant A1 and A4 was a member of the anti-government organization or a person who received it from the said member of the anti-government organization (Article 33 as a member of the anti-government organization).

In addition, Defendant A4 made a statement to the effect that he made a confession as to the non-disclosure in the first instance court of the case subject to reexamination, but as seen earlier, unless there is any evidence to acknowledge Defendant A1 as guilty of violating the National Security Act and violating the anti-public law with respect to Defendant A1, even if Defendant A4 did not notify the investigation information agency of Defendant A1’s act, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A4 committed a non-disclosure crime under the anti-public law or the National Security Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants committed the crime as stated in the facts charged, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2)

The presiding judge and the highest judge

Judges fixed-term

Judges Kang Han-hee