logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.26 2015누36524
보안관찰처분 기간갱신결정 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 16, 2007, the Seoul High Court sentenced the Plaintiff to three years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor and suspension of qualification for violating the National Security Act (hereinafter “Joint Communications, etc.”) at the Seoul High Court, and on December 13, 2007, the said sentence became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s appeal by the Supreme Court, and the sentence was completely executed on April 25, 2010 while the Plaintiff was serving in the Daejeon Prison.

Main points of criminal facts and applicable provisions of Acts are as follows:

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to anti-government organizations, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to anti-government organizations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The provisions of Article 8(1) of the National Security Act (the agreement is in place), Article 4(1)2(b) of the National Security Act (the point of detection, collection, and delivery of national secrets), Article 6(2) of the National Security Act (the point of escape and diving), Article 7(5) and (1) of the National Security Act (the point of possession of foreign expressions)

B. After the Plaintiff’s release, the Defendant issued a security surveillance disposition against the Plaintiff on November 8, 2012, and the prosecutor thereafter requested the Defendant to renew the period of security surveillance disposition against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014, the Defendant was punished by a fine for failing to fulfill the obligation to report under the Security Surveillance Act, subject to the resolution of the Security Surveillance Disposition Review Committee.

arrow