(a) the scope of “state secrets” under Article 3(1) of the National Security Act;

(b) Actual cases where there is an error of law which misleads the application of Acts to the crime of attempted escape in an illegal area;

A. The term “state secrets” under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 60) refers to the state secrets related to each aspect of politics, economy, culture, society, etc. as well as military secrets;

B. The defendant's act of recognizing the defendant as the defendant's attempted escape in an illegal area under Article 6 of the Anti-Public Law is erroneous in the application of Article 4 of the National Security Act regardless of the above.

Article 3 (1) of the National Security Act and Article 6 of the Anti-Public Law

Defendant 1 and four others

Sick Country and seven others

Seoul High Court Decision 208No10 decided March 21, 1968

Each appeal on the number of the defendants, the number of Dongs, and the Dong Kim Sung-sung shall be dismissed, respectively.

As to the defendant's subordinate academic and Kim Sung, 60 days of detention days after each appeal shall be included in the principal sentence of imprisonment, respectively.

The part of the judgment of conviction against the defendant Kim Pung-ro and the part on the defendant's gambling point shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(1) 1. We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, senior soldier’s station, Kim Ho-ho, and the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel on each of the grounds for appeal by the Korean Bar Association

The gist of this decision is that there was an error of law in misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of facts, and application of the law in the original judgment, and even if there was no illegality in the recognition of facts and application of the law, the determination of punishment by the original court is excessive. Thus, if the court below examines the evidence in the original judgment which was adopted as data to acknowledge the facts of this case and each evidence in the first instance judgment cited by the court below based on records, it cannot be said that there was an error in the preparation of evidence such as theory, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law in recognizing the facts of this case as evidence, and the state secrets provided for in Article 3 (1) of the National Security Act refer to the state secrets such as politics, economy, culture, society, etc., as well as the state secrets provided for in the above Article 3 (1) of the National Security Act, which are the previous precedents of the original court, and even if there was no error in the determination of the facts of the above defendants, it cannot be concluded that there was a considerable error in the court below's application of criminal history and punishment to the above defendants.

2. Examination of each of the grounds of appeal on Defendant Kim Sung and his defense counsel Kim Jong-sung

The gist of the decision is that there is an error in the finding of facts and the preparation of evidence by the court below, and even if the fact is assumed to be recognized, the determination of punishment by the court below is excessive. If the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is examined by records, it is difficult to conclude that there is an error in the deliberation of evidence and the fact-finding, such as the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment, and in the case of the case of which the two-year punishment was sentenced against the defendant Kim Sung-sung, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal that the determination of punishment is unfair

(2) 1. We examine each of the grounds of appeal on Defendant Kim Pung-ro and his defense counsel Han-chul, Park Jong-chul, and Dong Kim Jong-sung

According to the judgment of the court of first instance and the records of a case, the court of first instance sentenced 15 years to the defendant Kim Pung-ro and 15 years of qualification suspension, and the defendant was under detention at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance (at present, has been under detention), notwithstanding the clear evidence that the defendant was under detention, the court of first instance, on the ground that the court of first instance did not sentence the whole or part of the days of pre-trial detention to the original sentence while sentenced to imprisonment for a limited term as above, and on the ground that the court of first instance did not sentence the whole or part of the days of pre-trial detention to the defendant to the original sentence (which includes grounds for both unfair punishment), the court of first instance reversed the above judgment of the court of first instance (which includes grounds for both punishment) and sentenced 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor and suspension of qualification to the defendant, and the judgment of the court of first instance did not contain any error in law

2. Examination of the grounds of appeal on the defendant 3 and his defense attorney Kim Jong-sung

According to the part concerning Defendant 3 among the judgment of the court of first instance which was maintained by the court below, the court of first instance held that the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and suspension of qualifications for the limit of seven years, since it constitutes an attempted escape under Article 4 (5) 4 of the National Security Act, since the so-called of the judgment falls under aiding and abetting the crime of detection of national secrecy (Article 4-4), Article 3 (1) of the National Security Act and Article 32 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

However, the provision of Article 4 of the National Security Act is clear that it is a penal provision in the process of inciting or publicizing the crimes under the preceding three Articles by a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received an order from him, and even though it is not a penal provision for the person who escaped from an illegal area (the provision concerning attempted escape was stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti-Public Law), the court below recognized the so-called of the defendant as an attempted escape in an illegal area, and applied the provision of Article 4 of the National Security Act irrelevant thereto and applied the provision of the law and applied the law as concurrent crimes with other crimes, although there is no illegality in the application of the law, the court below's judgment of the first instance court cannot be found to be unlawful that it maintained under the premise that the judgment of the court below is justified, that is, the decision on the other grounds of appeal, and the part concerning the defendant 3 in the original judgment,

Therefore, among the original judgment, the part on the defendant Kim Pung-ro and the defendant's Park Park Park shall be reversed, and the other defendants' appeal shall be without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)