A. The degree of specification of facts charged

B. The meaning of national secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991)

C. Whether an act of escape from an area not under the control of an anti-government organization under the intention to achieve its purpose after being ordered by a member of an anti-government organization constitutes a crime of diving or escape under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act (affirmative)

D. The elements of the crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the former National Security Act

A. The facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts charged can be specified by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime and distinguish them from other facts, i.e., the identity of the facts charged can be recognized, and the degree of specification of the constituent elements of the crime, etc. Even if some of them are somewhat unclear, if it can be specified by other matters mentioned therein, the validity of the indictment does not affect.

B. State secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991) include all state secrets of each area such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc., not limited to state secrets within a positive sense. If it is advantageous material to North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and if it is likely to cause disadvantage to our country, it shall be deemed as state secrets.

C. The crime of diving and escape under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act is applicable to the case where a member of an anti-government organization receives an order from a member of an anti-government organization, or where a member of an anti-government organization receives an order from him/her, or where a member of an anti-government organization has escaped or escaped from it.

D. The crime of accepting money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the former National Security Act is established when the other party who receives money and valuables receives them with the knowledge that it is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received an order from an anti-government organization. The purpose of accepting money and valuables is not to contribute to the value or value of the money and valuables, or to receive money and valuables, and the requirement that the receipt of money and valuables is for the accomplishment

A. Article 254(4)/B of the Criminal Procedure Act / Article 4(1)2/C of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191). Article 6(2)/D of the National Security Act. Article 5(2) of the former National Security Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Do2260 delivered on January 20, 198 (Gong1987, 325) 90Do1613 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2235) 91Do2085 delivered on October 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2878) B. Supreme Court Decision 90Do646 delivered on June 8, 1990 (Gong190, 150) 87Do705 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1265) 90Do1285 delivered on August 24, 190 (Gong1990, 2054) 198Do16889 delivered on August 16, 198 (Gong1986, Apr. 16, 198)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan

Daegu High Court Decision 91No395 delivered on September 11, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence, each 80 days.

We examine the grounds of appeal. The Defendants’ grounds of appeal and their defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined together.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court of first instance and the court of first instance are acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence

As to the part concerning Defendant 1’s counter-espionage’s assertion that the facts charged were not specified

The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime, but it can be identified to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts, i.e., the identity of the facts charged, and the degree of specification of the constituent elements of the crime. Even if part of it is somewhat unclear, if it can be specified by other matters stated, it would not affect the validity of the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do2260, Jan. 20, 1987; 90Do1613, Sept. 25, 190); and 90Do1613, Sept. 25, 1990; 200; 3) examining the facts charged as to the crime of counter-espionage of Defendant 1, the summary of the inducement obtained by the same accused is indicated, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no specification of the facts charged under Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because all of the specific

Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just and without merit.

According to the records as to the part concerning the defendant 1's admissibility of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, the defendant 1 acknowledged the authenticity of the establishment of the suspect interrogation protocol of the same defendant as the prosecutor's interrogation protocol prepared by the court of first instance on the third trial date, and consented to the defendant 1's interrogation protocol prepared by the court below as evidence. Even if the defendant 1 and the defendant in the court below were forced to make a statement in the family national security planning division, the above defendants were examined six times and the examination date and place of the interrogation, the contents of their statements, etc. are examined through the records, and it does not appear that there is any reason to suspect the decentralization of the confession statement. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below's finding the defendant 1 and the defendant's statements at the prosecutor's office as evidence of guilt is unlawful.

There is no reason for the issue.

As to the denial of Defendant 2’s criminal intent

제1심판결이 들고 있는 증거들을 기록과 대조하여 보면, 피고인 2는 그가 처음 일본에 갔을 때 그의 이복동생인 공소외 1과 공소외 1의 장인인 공소외 2가 조총련의 간부로 활동중인 사실을 알았고, 그후 다시 일본에 가서 공소외 3 경영의 빠찡고에서 일하게 되면서는 공소외 3, 4 등이 조총련의 간부로서 반국가단체인 북한을 위하여 활동하고 있다는 사실을 인식하였을 뿐만 아니라, 그의 판시행위가 반국가단체의 이익이 된다는 사실도 인식하였다고 인정할 수 있으므로, 이 부분의 사실오인을 주장하는 항소이유를 배척한 원심의 조처는 수긍할 수 있고, 거기에 소론과 같은 채증법칙을 어긴 위법이나 법리의 오해가 있다고 할 수 없다.

There is no reason for this issue.

Defendant 1’s counter-espionage

Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991; hereinafter the same shall apply) includes all matters of national secrets such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc. which are not limited to national secrets within a net sense, and if it is advantageous to North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and it is likely to cause disadvantage to Korea, it constitutes a national secrets (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Do861, Jul. 8, 1986; 87Do705, Jun. 23, 1987; 87Do705, Jun. 23, 1987). Thus, in light of the records, the court below's finding of facts against Defendant 1 is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and if this facts are the same, the main issue collected by the defendant constitutes an act of national secrets under Article 4 (1) of the Act, which has been collected by the defendant's intent and its purpose.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

As to Defendant 1’s escape and diving

The crime of diving and escape as provided in Article 6 (2) of the Act, even in the case of escape or escape from an area not under the control of an anti-government organization, shall be deemed to fall under the case of escape or escape from an anti-government organization upon being ordered by a member of an anti-government organization (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1341, Sept. 8, 1987). Upon examining the records, the court below's disposition that recognized that Defendant 1 escaped or escaped under the order of Non-Indicted 3, etc. who is a member of an anti-government organization, or under the order of self-government organization and carried out its purpose, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as provided in Article 6 (2) of the Act.

There is no reason for this issue.

As to the Defendants’ crime of receiving money and valuables

The crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the Act is established upon the receipt of money and valuables by the other party knowing that he is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received an order from an anti-government organization, and it does not intend to receive money and valuables, and it does not require any separate requirement for the receipt of money and valuables to achieve the purpose of an anti-government organization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do2323, Jan. 22, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 90Do646, Jun. 8, 1990; 90Do646, Jun. 8, 1990); and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore, the court below's decision that the defendants' act constitutes a crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the Act is justified.

Therefore, there is no reason to dispute from the opposite position.

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below as to the part of the defendants' assertion that the application of the National Security Act to the defendants is unfair, it is clear that the defendants' act of this case constitutes an anti-government organization, such as the time of original adjudication, thereby threatening our free and democratic fundamental order. Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)