Despite the necessity of concurrent imposition of suspension of qualifications, an excessive example;

Despite the fact that suspension of qualification is essential to be imposed concurrently, it is an excessive example.

Article 16 of the Anti-Public Law, Article 11 of the National Security Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 67No103 delivered on July 4, 1967, Busan High Court Decision 67No103 delivered on July 4, 1967

The guilty portion in the original judgment shall be reversed, and such part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the original judgment is dismissed.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s First Ground of Appeal

Article 16 of the National Security Act applies mutatis mutandis to the crime of violation of anti-public law. Since the sentence of imprisonment is essential to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the National Security Act, suspension of qualifications for a maximum period of less than that in accordance with the above Article 16 of the same Act shall be concurrently imposed. However, despite the fact that the original judgment is sentenced to two years for the crime of violation of anti-public law (e.g., misunderstanding and concert of anti-government organizations), violation of smuggling Control Act and violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act, it cannot be said that the original judgment was sentenced to the defendant for two years, and that the suspension

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the original judgment, it is clear that the court below did not adopt the theory evidence, and if we examine the theory evidence in detail by comparing it with the case records, it is insufficient to conclude that the defendant's punishment Kim Young-gu was an executive member of the Cho Young-gu in Japan, but the defendant's activities and she was supported by the defendant's activities, or the defendant's daily money 2 million won received from the above Kim Young-gu was a contribution for the defendant's attack of the public policy in Busan, and that on November 17, 1965, the defendant returned from Japan to Busan by aircraft and the defendant was locked to carry out the public policy for the invasion of the public policy received from the above Kim Young-gu (the prosecutor's charges No. 2, 3, 44). Thus, it is just that the original judgment was not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence as to the above facts charged, and that there is no other legitimate criticism in the original judgment.

3. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s appeal is with merit in the first place above. Accordingly, without examining the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the defense counsel, the part guilty in the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The Prosecutor’s appeal on the acquittal portion in the original judgment is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Kimchim (Presiding Judge)