A. The law of “a person who has been engaged in the adultery” under Article 1 subparag. 2 of the National Security Act;

(b) Scope of “state secrets” in subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the same Act;

C. The meaning of Article 6(4) of the anti-public law "the person who escaped under an order of an anti-government organization"

A. In order to readily conclude that a person is a person who has been engaged in an executive under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 60), it does not necessarily mean that the person is a person who has been engaged in the executive officer, and it does not necessarily mean that the organization’s members, organization, institution, etc. were identified and whether he/she was in a certain position in the organization. In addition, if the person has already promised to perform the duties as an executive officer,

B. Among the State secrets under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 600), if this constitutes favorable evidence for anti-government organizations even though the content belongs to common sense in the Republic of Korea, it shall also be included herein.

C. Among those who escape under the order of an anti-government organization as referred to in Article 6(4) of the anti-public law, it includes the case of escape because they escape to a foreign country legally.

Article 1 subparagraph 2 of the National Security Act, Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the National Security Act, and Article 6 (4) of the Anti-Public Law

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 67No176 delivered on September 1, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67No176 delivered on September 1, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

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

(1) In full view of the various evidences enumerated in the judgment of the court of first instance that the court below maintained, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts charged in this case recognized by the court of first instance are not necessarily dependent on the confession of the defendant, and that such fact-finding is not necessarily dependent on the confession of the defendant, but has considerable reinforcement evidence.

(2) In order to conclude that “a person who has been engaged in an inter-party relationship” as stipulated in Article 1 subparag. 2 of the National Security Act is not necessarily required to clarify whether the member or organization, organization, institution, etc. was in the position of the organization and clarify what kind of status was in the organization. Furthermore, even if the fact that the specific duty was not commenced does not exist, it may be deemed that the person who had been engaged in the executive with the promise to perform the duties as the executive. The Supreme Court ruling pointing out the place of issue is inappropriate

(3) A state secret under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the National Security Act, even though its content belongs to common sense in the Republic of Korea, if it becomes favorable for anti-government organizations, it is reasonable to view such fact as included herein.

(4) From among those who escape under the order of an anti-state organization as referred to in Article 6 (4) of the Anti-public Law, the cases of escape are also included in the case of escape because they went to a legitimate foreign country.

(5) The lower court against the Defendant, even though the first instance court maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life when considering all the circumstances mentioned above, cannot be said to mean that the sentence of imprisonment for life is an excessive sentence in light of the facts constituting the crime in this case. The first instance court maintained by the lower court, recognizing the fact that the Defendant voluntarily surrenders himself, and sentencing by reducing necessary self-denunciation in accordance with the National Security Act and the anti-public law. It is unreasonable to argue that there is no misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on self-denunciation.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.