A. The meaning of diving in the crime of diving under Article 6(2) of the National Security Act

(b) Requirements for establishing crimes of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act;

C. Whether it is necessary to intend to practice the order when locked into the establishment of the crime of diving under Article 6(2) of the National Security Act (affirmative)

A. The crime of diving under Article 6(4) of the former Anti-Public Law and Article 6(2) of the National Security Act is established when a member of the anti-state organization, who was ordered to surrender and carry out the order, and it does not necessarily require that the crime be entered into the Republic of Korea in a non-legal manner.

B. Since the crime of accepting money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act is an offense established in all cases where money and valuables are received from a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received such order with the knowledge of the fact that the purpose is not to do so, the requirement that the money and valuables will be received for the accomplishment of the purpose of an anti-government organization is not required separately.

C. In order to constitute a crime under Article 6(2) of the National Security Act, the mere fact that a member of the anti-state organization was subject to an order before entering the Republic of Korea is insufficient, and the fact that at the time of entering the Republic of Korea, he/she had an intent to practice such order and purpose should also be recognized.

(a)Article 6(4) of the former Anti-Public Law, Article 6(2) of the National Security Act, Article 5(2) of the National Security Act;

Supreme Court Decision 72Do2049 delivered on October 31, 1972, 84Do1796 delivered on October 31, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Do863 delivered on June 14, 1983

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorneys Han Han-sik et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 84No1921 delivered on September 19, 1984

The lower judgment against Defendant 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1 and 3’s appeals are dismissed.

The 80 days out of detention days prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the imprisonment with labor for Defendant 3.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel and by Defendant 3 and his defense counsel

(1) As to the argument that there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence:

According to the evidence cited by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants got out of Korea with the intent to carry out the order after being ordered by members of the anti-government organization merely because they were merely the same as the contents of the judgment, and there is no unlawful ground for finding the defendants guilty only with the false fact due to the preparation of evidence violating the rules of evidence or the confession of the defendants who do not have any supporting evidence. Further, Article 6 (4) of the former Anti-Corruption Act, Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act is established if the defendants were forced to leave Korea with the intention to carry out the order from members of the anti-government organization, and it does not necessarily require the entry into Korea in a non-legal manner (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Do863, Jun. 14, 1983; 84Do748, Jun. 26, 1984; 2006Do1648, Jun. 26, 1984).

(2) We examine whether there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to a violation of the rules of evidence against the National Security Act's counter-espionage

In light of the records, according to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance in the judgment of the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the above defendants discovered and collected the same matters as the contents of the judgment of the court below, and there are no errors such as the theory of lawsuit in the process of evidence preparation and fact-finding. However, the main issues of the lawsuit include the contents widely known to the general public in the process of evidence preparation and fact-finding. However, all of the main issues of the lawsuit can be seen as a state secret or military secret in the military, political, and social fields of our national defense as well as our country's interest because all of the main issues of the lawsuit include the contents that are known to the general public or not confirmed by North Korea's leader group. Therefore, the court below's measure of maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants as a counter-espionage is just and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the state secrets

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel and the grounds of appeal by each of the Defendants, Defendant 2, 3, and the same Defendants’ defense counsel, there were errors in mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in receiving money

According to the evidence adopted by the first instance court maintained by the court below, the defendants can sufficiently prove that they received money and valuables from an anti-government organization with full knowledge of the fact that they are members of the anti-government organization or those who received its order, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence. Meanwhile, since the crime of accepting money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act is established when they receive money and valuables from an anti-government organization with knowledge of the fact that they are members of the anti-government organization or those who received its order, the requirement that the money and valuables are for the accomplishment of the purpose of the anti-government organization does not require any separate requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Do2049, Oct. 31, 1972; 84Do1796, Oct. 10, 1984), the first instance court affirmed the judgment of the court below which held that the defendants received money and valuables from the members of the anti-government organization or those who received its order, and it cannot be justified.

3. As to the argument that there was an error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in relation to the crime of meeting among the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3 and his defense counsel

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment of the court below, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized as a member of each anti-government organization in which the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 are members of the committee of the Central Headquarters of Korea, and the non-party 1 is a member of the non-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's sub-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party

4. As to Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal that there was an error of omission of judgment or omission of reasons,

In light of the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below's reasoning of appeal on the grounds that the facts charged against the defendant, the detection of State secrets, or collection of facts cannot be recognized, is consistent with the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance, which is adopted by the court of first instance. The court below's rejection of the facts charged against the defendant. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below's failure to determine that any criminal facts can be recognized by any evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance, on the ground that the court of first instance did not specifically determine that the facts

5. As to the argument that Defendant 3’s attorney’s grounds of appeal contain an error of omission of judgment or mitigation of punishment,

The grounds for appeal in the theory that the defendant's detection or collection of military secrets or national secrets is merely an aiding and abetting co-defendant 1's acts as a counter-espionage act are derived from asserting that the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance are wrong, which is rejected as the court below's rejection of the judgment that the facts constituting the counter-espionage crime in the judgment of the court of first instance can be recognized by the evidences of the court of first instance. Thus, there is no ground to hold that the court below or the court of first instance erred in the misapprehension of judgment as to the above grounds for appeal, unless the court below or the court of first instance recognizes the counter-espionage act of the defendant's judgment as an aiding and abetting co-defendant 1's acts as a counter-espionage act.

6. As to Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal on unreasonable sentencing:

In light of all the forms of punishment shown in the records, the court below is justified in the measures that maintained the sentence of the court of first instance against the defendant as they are, and it is not recognized that there is a substantial reason to regard it as extremely unfair.

7. Regarding the argument that there was an error of misconception of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles in the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel and in the counter-espionage,

The judgment of the court of the first instance maintained by the court below [1] Defendant 2 was a member of the Korean Educational Inspection Team in Japan, and it is hard to find out materials about education and send them to Japan. If students wish to study in Japan, it is hard to find out that the first instance court's judgment is a new assistant teacher who is a member of the Korean Educational Inspection Team in Japan, and it is hard to find out the fact that the first instance court's new assistant teacher is a member of the Korean Educational Inspection Team in order to accomplish its purpose. It is hard to find out the fact that the first instance court's new assistant teacher was a member of the Korean Educational Inspection Team in the first instance, and it is hard to find out the fact that the first instance court's new assistant teacher was a member of the Korean Educational Inspection Team in the second instance, and it is necessary to establish the first instance court's new educational order's new educational data for the purpose of promoting the new assistant teacher by entering the second instance airport of Korea around 15:00, and it is necessary to establish the first instance court's new educational data for 190 months.

However, if the defendant's entry into Japan in order to constitute a crime under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act, the fact that the defendant received an order from a member of an anti-government organization such as the first trial before entering the Republic of Korea is insufficient, and the fact that the defendant had an intention to practice the order at the time of entry is also recognized.

However, according to the records, the defendant's statement in the court of first instance, the interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor, Kim Young-hee, Lee Jong-hee, Lee Jong-hee-hee, Lee Jong-ok, and Lee Jong-ok's statement, investigation report prepared by judicial police officers (3702), actual investigation report and evidence No. 9,100, which were seized by the court of first instance, were insufficient to recognize that the defendant entered the Republic of Korea with the same intention to practice the first inquiry as of his father, who was a member of anti-government organization, or with the intention to practice the first inquiry. Rather, according to the above evidence and the records, it is difficult to find that his father, as a member of the court of first instance, was aware of his own movement and the fact that he did not have been aware of his own movement from his father's age, and that his father did not have been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he could not have come to Korea with his own intention to do so.

Then, Defendant 2 did not read the article for the first time after the first instance court's ruling that it was consistent with the first instance court's ruling. However, Defendant 1 cannot be recognized as having known of the above counter-espionage facts, and Defendant 2 cannot be acknowledged as having known of the content of the first day's protocol of examination of suspect records (in particular, third day's protocol of examination of suspect), since it was hard for Defendant 1 to find it as having known of the contents of the first day's protocol of examination of suspect records, such as the content of the first day's statement and the first day's protocol of examination of suspect records, and it is hard to find that Defendant 1 was aware of the same contents of the first day's protocol of examination of suspect records as the first day's records and the second day's statement that it was hard to find as having known of the contents of the first day's protocol of examination of suspect records, such as the first day's statement and the second day's statement before and after 1983.

8. Therefore, the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. Defendant 1 and 3's appeal is without merit, and thus, the appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are included in the imprisonment with labor against Defendant 3.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju