A. Whether there is a purpose of national defense solely on the basis of the fact that an anti-state organization was formed by a person who is a publicist or a person who acts in concert with an anti-state organization (affirmative)

(b) The other party to a crime or the subject of an offense, such as meetings or communications, etc. in antipublic law;

(c) Changes in facts based on new facts and evidence after remand and binding force of the judgment of remand;

A. In order to establish the crime of forming an anti-state organization under Article 1 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 1960), a group shall be organized to return the government to the government, and it does not necessarily require the establishment of an anti-state organization, or modification of the state body by the military state, etc., and it requires the government to attend the government or to change the state as a violent means, so it requires a specific concept of the government to be transferred to the government and to be newly established after the government transfer to the government. However, if an anti-state organization was formed by a publicist or a person who makes the same organization in North Korea, it shall be deemed that the government was established in the same form as North Korea after the transition to the government in experience, so it is not necessary to see again the existence of the purpose.

B. In the establishment of crimes such as meetings and communications under Article 8(1) of the National Security Act (Law No. 3318 of Dec. 31, 1980) and Article 5(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act (No. 1997 of Mar. 17, 1968), which was repealed by the enactment and enforcement of the National Security Act, the other party becomes a member of an anti-government organization or a person who is subject to its order, and it does not require that the other party be a non-member of an anti-government organization or a person who is subject to its order. Thus, this crime of meeting shall be established even in cases where the above acts are committed between a member of an anti-government organization or a person who is subject to its order.

C. The binding force of the judgment remanded to lower courts only takes place in a passive sense that the original judgment, which was the reason for reversal, is not justifiable, and thus, if new facts and evidence were presented during the trial process after remand and changes in facts which were the basis for binding judgment, the binding force does not extend, and if the original judgment was erroneously made based on different opinions, it cannot be said that there was an error in violation of Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act regarding the binding force of the judgment remanded to lower courts, even if it was based on different opinions based on new facts and evidence.

A. Article 1 of the former National Security Act (No. 549, Jun. 10, 1960); Article 8(1) of the National Security Act and Article 5(1) of the anti-public law; Article 7 of the Court Organization Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do152 Decided April 21, 1966, 74Do323 Decided April 8, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 68Do754 Decided July 30, 1968

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Attorney Hah Ha-chan, Gyeong-chan

Seoul High Court Decision 82No1254 delivered on October 15, 1982 for Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the Seoul High Court Decision 82No1254 delivered on October 29, 1982 for Defendant 4

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal of the defendant 1 and 2 shall be included in the calculation of 5 days each, and the original sentence to the same defendant, etc.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 by the defense counsel of the defendant et al.

In order to establish an anti-government organization under Article 1 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 1960), a group shall be organized to return to the government, and it shall not necessarily be established with the authority to calculate the government, or with the purpose of representing the government or impairing the State through the military state, etc., and therefore, it shall be required that the government should be transferred to the government by violent means, and the government should be specifically established after the transfer to the government, and if a person who acts in North Korea with an anti-government organization constitutes an anti-government organization, it shall be deemed that the government has established the same type of government as North Korea leader specifically after the transition to the government, so it shall not be necessary to consider whether there exists a new purpose, and it shall not be sufficient to establish a new and independent opinion of the court below as to whether there is a violation of the rules of evidence of the National Security Act, such as an organization and method of returning to the government or an anti-government organization, and it shall not be found that there is no error of law in the organization and evidence applied to the present facts.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and Defendant 1, 2, and 3’s Grounds of appeal by the same attorney Cho Jong-chul, as to the grounds of appeal by the public defender

Article 8(1) of the National Security Act (No. 3318 of December 31, 1980) and Article 5(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act (No. 197 of March 17, 1968) which has been repealed by the enactment and enforcement of the National Security Act shall be punished by a person who meets with a member or a person who has received an order from an anti-government organization or a person who has received an order from an anti-government organization, even though they are aware that they would be the benefit of an anti-government organization or an inter-government organization. The establishment of this crime requires that the other party becomes a member of an anti-government organization or a person who has received an order from an anti-government organization, and that the other party is a non-member of an anti-government organization or a person who has received an order from an anti-government organization. Thus, even if the above acts are committed between members of an anti-government organization or a person who has received an order from an anti-government organization, this crime is established (see Supreme Court Decision 68Do7

Therefore, even if the defendant et al. constituted an anti-government organization and became a member of the organization, if the defendant et al. knowingly meet with the intent of the organization, the crime of meeting under the National Security Act is established. Thus, the court below's decision to this effect is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of meeting, thereby

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3 by the same attorney subordinate to the defendant-appellant

The court to which the case was remanded from the Re-appeal Court shall be bound by a factual and legal judgment made by the Re-appeal Court as the reason for reversal is the same as the theory of lawsuit. However, since the binding force of the lower court's judgment on the remand judgment is only derived from a passive aspect that the factual and legal judgment on the original judgment, which served as the reason for reversal, is not justified, the binding force of the judgment after remand, if there was a change in the factual relations, which served as the basis for binding judgment upon the presentation of new facts and evidence during the trial process after remand, and thus, if there was a change in the factual relations that served as the basis for reverse judgment, it cannot be said that there was a violation of Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act as to the binding force of the lower court of remand judgment, even if there was a different conclusion

According to the records of this case, the court below acknowledged the crime of forming an anti-government organization only by the evidence which was hard to recognize that the U.S. court below composed of the defendant, etc. destroyed the constitutional order of the Republic of Korea and changed the nation to form an anti-government organization, and constitutes an anti-government organization, in violation of the rules of evidence, and should have deliberated on whether the U.S. council's specific purpose is changed or not, but it did not reach this point in view of the legal principles, and it refers to the status of formation of the association or group, and it was merely a mere apportionment of duties at the time of the original trial, but it was hard to find that the court below's first instance court's new fact-finding of the prosecutor's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second court's prosecutor's first instance's second court's first instance court's second court's appeal.

4. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 4 and Defendant 1’s ground of appeal by the same attorney Yang Jong-chul

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below after remanding, the court below established the name of the non-indicted 1's religious community education and the name of the non-indicted 3's religious community education and the name of the non-indicted 1's religious community education and the name of the non-indicted 1's religious community education and the name of the non-indicted 3's religious community education and the non-indicted 1's religious community education and the name of the non-indicted 5's religious community education and the non-indicted 1's religious community education and the name of the non-indicted 3's religious community education and the non-indicted 1's religious community education and the organization of the non-indicted 3's religious community education and the non-indicted 1's religious community education and development of the non-indicted 1's religious community's religious community education and the non-indicted 1's religious community education and the non-indicted 1's religious community education and development of the non-indicted 1's religious community's present order.

As shown in the above final facts, the modern community theory, which Defendant 1 presented in the original trial, is not an official objective of the first instance court, and there is no direct relation with the second instance court. However, since the Defendants were able to join the above research presentation and the research presentation was made, the research presentation and its contents are merely mere transitional facts leading to the criminal facts, and there is no complaint for the establishment of the criminal facts at the time of the original trial after the remand of the Defendant, etc., the debate on this point is just just because it is connected to the misunderstanding of the facts established at the original trial after the remand of the above former part, and it is groundless, and it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the Defendant, etc. at the time of the original trial after the remand of the former part, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law that misleads the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, lack of reason, or inconsistent reasoning. This part of the appeal is without merit.

5. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and Defendant 1’s ground of appeal by the same attorney Yang Jong-chul

Examining the investigation process of this case based on the case records, each suspect interrogation protocol on the defendant, etc. prepared by the public prosecutor as well as each suspect interrogation protocol on the discretionary number and discretionary trees prepared by the public prosecutor is prepared under the continuous situation of abuse and psychological apprehensions, and thus, it cannot be found that there is no voluntariness. In addition, as in the lawsuit theory, the fact that the defendant is a highly reader who has been engaged in a religious life from 10 to 20 years from his birth to her birth does not constitute any reason for the defendants to believe that the defendants' statements in the public prosecutor's office have no voluntariness and credibility. Therefore, the appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

6. Ultimately, the appeal by the defendant et al. is dismissed on the ground that the appeal by the defendant et al. is without merit. The part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal by the defendant 1 and 2 is to be included in each principal sentence

In this judgment, all the participating judges were involved in the judgment.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)