Requirements for establishing crimes, such as praise, rubber, etc. of anti-state organizations under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act

In Article 7 (1) of the current National Security Act, the provision that punishs an act that helps an anti-state organization take advantage of obscenity, rubber, concert, or any other means is an abolished Article 4 (1) of the former Anti-Corruption Act, and the content of the act should be objectively deemed to be an interest of an anti-government organization, and subjectively, it is required to recognize that the act is against an anti-government organization.

Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Do36 delivered on February 23, 1971, 72Do99 delivered on June 27, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 73Do2602 delivered on December 11, 1973, 76Do2671 delivered on September 28, 1976

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Doo-gu

Jeonju District Court Decision 82No534 delivered on October 20, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the evidence of the first instance court as cited by the lower court and the lower court, the lower court determined that “The U.S. Cultural Institute Fire-Fighting case of the United States of America, U.S., was led to the Central Information Institute, not the Cultural Institute, but communications. It can be seen that the publicism would be bad, but the fact that our country’s socialist system should be introduced is not so-called “The U.S. socialism,” and that the U.S. government-invested organization, U.S. government-invested organization, as the Defendant, should recognize that the U.S. government-invested organization was bad, and that the U.S. government-invested organization would be abandoned its capital and investment.”

According to the records, although the defendant was elected as the student president by the direct election of the students in Gwangju High School around 1974, the defendant was not aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had to be aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact.

Meanwhile, under Article 7 (1) of the current National Security Act, the provision that punishs acts that act that act that act that act that acts that act that act that acts that act that act that acts that act that act that act that act that act that act that act that act that act in the anti-government organization is committed is accepted under Article 4 (1) of the former anti-public law, which has been repealed, and the content of the act should be objectively recognized as an interest of the anti-government organization, and subjectively, it is a party member at the time of the former anti-public law. (See Supreme Court Decisions 71Do36 delivered on February 23, 197; 72Do99 delivered on June 27, 1972; 73Do2602 delivered on November 11, 1973; 76Do2671 delivered on September 28, 1976, etc.). In light of the record, the court below's records and evidence that the defendant's act that the court below acknowledged at the time of the first instance could not be objectively recognized as an anti-government act.

In addition, the court below's decision that the defendant's idea was broomed can broom the fact that broom and broom had been used as a communistist. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, it is not clear whether the broadcast that the defendant was a broom broadcasting, the inter-Korean broadcasting, and the sound of so-called the so-called cather, which is the inter-Korean broadcasting, and if the broadcast speaks as follows, it is not examined how the defendant understood the intention of the brutist, even though it is not the cultural center, but the communication company's speech or behavior is not examined. Furthermore, if the defendant's speech or behavior of the 200 U.S. cultural center, the Busan cultural center's leader can be viewed as an anti-state organization or an anti-state organization's leader or an anti-state organization's leader or an anti-state organization's leader's activities can be discovered and presented as an anti-state organization's thought or behavior.

Nevertheless, the court below decided that the defendant's principal speech and behavior is subject to Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act, and it is not possible to escape from criticism that the defendant did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or misleads the facts against the rules of evidence. Therefore, it is reasonable to point out the ground for appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in order to make a new trial and determination, and the case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)