Cases to be viewed as the commencement of a counter-espionage act

It should be viewed that there was a commencement of a counter-espionage act when a counter-espionage act was invaded in South Korea under the order of the North Korean trupture with a counter-espionage already dispatched by the North Korean truping agency.

Article 98 of the Criminal Act, Articles 2, 3, and 7 of the National Security Act

Appellant

High Military Port 502 delivered on March 15, 1963, such as the Second Military Forces and the Second Military Forces;

The appeal is dismissed.

The sixty days of detention days prior to the judgment in this Court shall be included in the original sentence of the original judgment.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel is that the court below erred by holding against the precedents of the Supreme Court rendered on November 9, 4287, which held that the defendant's act of preparation or conspiracy of a counter-espionage is not an attempted counter-espionage, despite the fact that the defendant's act of preparation or conspiracy of a counter-espionage is not an attempted counter-espionage. As such, as the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, if the defendant was locked into South Korea under the order to contact with a counter-espionage that has already been dispatched by the North Korean trupe, etc., and as such, if the defendant was locked into South Korea, it shall be deemed that there was commencement of a counter-espionage act in South Korea. Therefore, the court below's decision that cited the theory of the lawsuit is just to rate the defendant's main part as an attempted counter-espionage.

Then, the summary of the defendant's grounds of appeal is entirely denied the facts charged and the court below erred in finding facts. However, such ground does not fall under any of the grounds prescribed in Article 432 of the Military Court Act, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal against the original judgment. Thus, it shall not be adopted.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and the sixty days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the original judgment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Young-sapon (Presiding Judge) Man-man Man-man Man-man