Whether the validity of a person who committed a crime of violating the National Security Act, which is a necessary reason for reduction or exemption, is denied on the ground that he/she recognized the number of persons who committed a crime of violation of the National Security Act, but the motive is unclear and that he/she posted an accomplice

A self-denunciation is a reason for reduction of or exemption from punishment, and if a voluntary report is made to an investigation agency on the crime, it shall meet the requirements. Thus, unless there is any evidence that the number of self-declarations would be by the Ordinance of North Korea, it cannot be said that the number of self-denunciations would be invalid even if the number of self-declarations is inappropriate, and that the number of self-declarations

Article 13 of the National Security Act and Article 52 of the Criminal Act

Article 13(4) of the National Security Act (Article 13(4) of the National Security Act, a summary of the decision of 69Do779 delivered on July 22, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 684 delivered on July 17, 196, Supreme Court Decision 17 ② type 100

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court (68Da19893)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

Nos. 1 (U.S. No. 500), 2 (17 E.S. E. 17 E.M.), 3 (1 Twitter radio) and 4 (1 e.g.), which have been seized, shall be confiscated from the defendant respectively.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (a) as long as it is obvious that the Defendant had never been engaged in the activities for anti-government organizations or in support of pro-North Korea abduction in view of the content of the activities for anti-government organizations and the legal attitude, the Defendant should be punished by extreme punishment, and thus, the Defendant’s office of general boundaries and national security should be ensured; (b) accordingly, the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds for appeal may be corrected

(1) The lower court did not apply Article 13(1) of the National Security Act and thereby should be reversed as it constitutes a violation of the Constitution, Act, order or rule affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts falling under Articles 13(3) and 13(2) of the National Security Act, and the sentencing of the lower court is unfair. (3) According to the first ground for appeal of the defense counsel, the lower court’s judgment and records (not more than five books, not more than 46 pages, 62 pages), it can be recognized that the Defendant surrendered to the Central Information Department by leaving the criminal facts indicated in the lower judgment (excluding a counter-espionage attempted crime), and the Defendant did not know that the Defendant did not voluntarily surrenders the Defendant from the point of view that he did not appear to be guilty, and that the Defendant did not know that he did not voluntarily surrenders to North Korea, but did not know that he did not voluntarily surrenders to North Korea, and it was hard to say that the Defendant did not know that he did not voluntarily surrenders to North Korea from the point of view that he did not immediately after the Defendant’s.

However, the self-denunciation itself does not constitute a crime, but constitutes a crime, and if a voluntary report is made to an investigation agency as a reason for reduction or exemption of punishment, the requirement shall be met. Thus, unless there is no evidence that the number of the defendant's self-denunciation is based on the order of North Korea bullying, the motive of the self-denunciation is not transparent, and the number of the defendant's self-denunciation cannot be effective because he left the accomplice after self-denunciation, and as such, the defendant's remaining crimes except the crime of espionage at the 7th anniversary of the original facts constituting the crime against the defendant should be mitigated in accordance with Article 13 (1) of the National Security Act. However, despite the fact that the court below's rejection of the defendant's self-denunciation for the above reason, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on absolute self-denunciation, and this affected the judgment, and the court of each party is reversed the judgment of the court below and it is again decided as follows

In addition, the court below asserts that there is an error of law that emphasizes facts falling under Article 13 (2) and (3) of the National Security Act, and therefore, even if the defendant was active as a member of the anti-government organization, and voluntarily surrenders himself as a member of the anti-government organization, and stated the circumstances leading up to the crime with the accomplice up to the time of self-denunciation, and in particular, there is no evidence to prove that the person who committed or attempted to commit the crime of the National Security Act was separately accused, or that the defendant suspended the act of which the defendant began to commit, prevented the occurrence of the result of the act, or prevented another person from committing the crime under the same Act. Thus, the court below's appeal against this point cannot be received by the counsel.

Finally, in consideration of the various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the health unit and one day record of the lower court’s sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing, which is life imprisonment, is deemed appropriate, and an appeal by the prosecutor’s office or defense counsel’s counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense attorney’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense attorney’s defense counsel’s defense counsel

Criminal facts and evidence of the defendant recognized as a party member are the same as those stated in the judgment of the court below, and they are cited by applying Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 2 of the National Security Act, Article 98 (1) and Article 3 of the National Security Act, Article 8 (1), Article 8 (3), Article 8 (1) and Article 2 of the same Act, Article 98 (1) of the same Act, and Article 98 (1) of the same Act, Article 98 (1) of the same Act, and Article 98 (1) of the same Act, Article 98 of the same Act, Article 6 (2) of the same Act, and Article 6 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, provides that if a person commits a crime of life imprisonment with prison labor of an anti-government organization at the time of original approval and Article 1 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 5 of the same Act, provides that a person who has been engaged in the duty of an anti-government organization at the time shall be mitigated.

Judges Noh Jin-be (Presiding Judge)