Whether a separate crime of non-disclosure is established in a case where a person who leads to the number of crimes of non-disclosure as prescribed in Article 8 of the Anti-Public Act does not know and inform the same person of the fact that he or she had been aware of a new North

Defendant 2’s failure to report to an investigation agency during a considerable period of time, even though Defendant 1’s speech and interviewed by Defendant 1 during May 1, 1975 and Defendant 1 on June 1976, and Defendant 2 did not report to the investigation agency during a considerable period of time, and even if Defendant 2 continued to commit a crime of influence as prescribed in Article 8 of the Anti-Corruption Act, and even if Defendant 2 became aware of the fact of influence toward the same person, it cannot constitute

Article 8 of the Antipublic Law

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Incheon Branch Court Decision 76 High Court Decision 190

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten years and suspension of qualifications for ten years, by imprisonment for ten months and by suspension of qualifications for two years, respectively.

Of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 170 days shall be included in the calculation of Defendant 1, and 145 days shall be included in the said imprisonment.

Seized evidence 1(s) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, the part of the facts charged (2) (4.7 of the same year, March 5, 1976; 4.8 of the same year, and 8.19 of the same year) is not guilty.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsel is as follows: First, the Defendants did not commit the principal offense; however, the court below found the Defendants guilty; second, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts that could affect the judgment; second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of the sentence imposed by the Defendants is too unreasonable; second, the gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant 1 is that the sentence imposed by the court below is rather unreasonable.

Therefore, the first ground for appeal by Defendant 1 is examined, and the evidence duly adopted by the court below after examining the evidence is examined in light of the records, the criminal facts of the defendant's original case can be recognized. Thus, the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

Then, examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor against the same accused, in light of various circumstances such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, result, etc. of the principal offense, the determination of the sentence against the accused is too unreasonable, and therefore, there is a reason to dismiss the reversal of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, according to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the conviction portion among the judgment below shall be reversed, and a party member shall be decided again.

Next, the court below found Defendant 2 guilty of all the facts charged against the above Defendant. However, the facts (the first instance court, the first instance court, the first instance court's determination) among the facts charged against the above Defendant cannot constitute a separate crime of non-disclosure as provided in Article 8 of the Anti-Public Act by failing to report to the investigation agency within a considerable period of time after hearing the opinion of 14:00 around May 1975 and the first 14:00 around early May 1976 that the above Defendant did not report to the investigation agency within a considerable period of time, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of non-disclosure as stated in Article 8 of the anti-Public Act, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the above Defendant, i.e., the Defendant did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of non-disclosure and the second misunderstanding of legal principles as to the defendant's remaining charges of 15.5 times on August 19, 1976.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

Defendant 1’s criminal facts and the summary of the evidence related thereto recognized as a party member are as stated in the corresponding column of the lower judgment. Defendant 2’s criminal facts are as stated in 2 and A at the time of original adjudication, and the summary of the evidence is as stated in the evidence explanation of the lower judgment. Therefore, all these facts are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 4(1) of the Civil Act provides that the so-called "one-called" or "one-half" of the judgments of the court below shall be counted as follows: Article 2 of the National Security Act; Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called "one-called "one-half" of the judgments of the court shall be counted as "one-half"; Article 4(2) and (1) of the Civil Act provides that the so-called "one-called "one-half" of the judgments of the court; Article 8 of the so-called "the National Security Act" provides that Article 9 of the National Security Act provides that the so-called "one-called "one-half" of the judgments of the court below shall be punished by imprisonment; Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act; Article 50 of the National Security Act provides that "one-half" shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor; Article 15 of the Criminal Act provides that the suspension of qualifications shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant 1; Article 15 of the National Security Act provides that the above-one-half term shall be imposed as "one-half";

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, it means that the defendant obtained a attack against Defendant 1 at the office of the defendant on March 5, 1976 and received information from the strengthen police station that made an investigation, and Nonindicted 1 was asked about whether he was a usual speech and behavior with Defendant 1, and concealed the fact of the speech and behavior with no intention to use in the line of duty at the same place on April 7 and 4.8 of the same year. The same purport is to the same effect as Defendant 2 at the same time on August 22 and 30 of the same year, and it is to say that the defendant was not guilty of the above facts of the crime by failing to report it to the investigation agency on 19:5 times at the same place on August 19, 19, 200, Incheon East Police Station information and work 2, 2, and 3, etc. as mentioned above, and the fact that the defendant did not have an intention to use it in the line of duty at the same time and 5th of duty. The reason for appeal is to the above 15th of the defendant's appeal.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Oral-ho (Presiding Judge)