Even for an inclusive crime, unless each fact constituting such crime is specified in the indictment, such part shall not be the object of the trial.

Even for an all-inclusive crime, each fact constituting it shall not be subject to a trial unless it is specified in the indictment.

Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act

May 24, 1962 60 emergency2

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 71No277 delivered on July 22, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 71No277 delivered on July 22, 1971

The appeal by the defendantHagman is dismissed.

The judgment of the court below on the Defendant’s exclusive jurisdiction, and the lower court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Hahman,

The issue is ultimately on the grounds that the lower court’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, or on the records, it cannot be said that the lower court’s determination of the punishment is extremely unfair, and that there is no ground for appeal.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant Hasaman's attorney Yang Sung-tae,

According to the reasoning of the judgment in the court below, the court below duly confirmed the receipt and collection of the State secret No. 1-2 at the time of the lawsuit based on the evidence that he was found, and then, according to Article 11 (1) of the National Security Act (Act No. 500), Article 11 (1) of the National Security Act (Act No. 500), and Article 3 (1) of the National Security Act (Act No. 549) of the time of the trial, but its punishment is the same. Thus, the court below properly decided that the above act should be governed by the law at the time of the above act pursuant to Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, there is no

As to the second ground for appeal:

As a supporting evidence for confession, not only directly evidence but also circumstantial evidence shall be admissible, and according to the explanation of the original judgment, since the fact of divulgence of prosecution secrets is recognized by the confession of the defendant and other circumstantial evidence, there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the lawsuit, and there is no reason to argue that there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the lawsuit

With respect to the third ground for appeal:

However, the defendant's ground of appeal No. 3 is examined, it is not possible to find out any trace that the original 1-1 act was forced under Article 12 of the Criminal Act, and there is no room to discuss the attempted suspension because the original 1-1 act was legally and legally declared the fact of collecting and collecting national secret in the original 1-2 at the time of the original 1-33. Thus, since the original 1-1 act did not specify the judgment on the forced act and attempted suspension, it cannot be said that there is no error of law in the omission of reasoning. Thus, the argument is groundless.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 and No. 2 of the defense counsel system, such as the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant Lee Young-hee and his defense counsel for Heon

When comprehensively reviewing the reasoning for reversal of the judgment of the first instance court and the facts recognized by the court below and the provisions of law on application of the court below with respect to the defendants, the court below recognizes the facts of Article 2-1 (a) (c) (D) of the judgment against the defendants as co-offenders in the comprehensive crime of acts of counter-espionage and the facts of Article 2-2 (a) (c) (d) as co-offenders in the comprehensive crime of acts of counter-espionage. This two crimes can be viewed as a single crime under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. According to the indictment, as to the defendants 2 of the above facts admitted in the indictment, the court below did not contain any error of law as stated in Article 2-1 (a) and Article 2-2 (c) (c) (c) and Article 2-1 (2) (c) of the former Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the defendant 3 as co-offenders in the comprehensive crime of acts of counter-espionage.

Therefore, according to Articles 390 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have jurisdiction over the red net leaves.