(a) A case recognized as falling under the demonstration under Article 5 (1) 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

B. Whether entering a university library without a search and seizure warrant constitutes legitimate performance of official duties to rescue the police officers arrested and detained by university students (affirmative)

(c) Whether it is possible to anticipate the occurrence of ideas as a requirement for the establishment of a special crime of obstruction and injury to public duty where a flame disease is administered indoor university with large combustible materials for the purpose of obstructing the performance of official duties (affirmative)

D. Probative value of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor

(e) The intent of conspiracy in the establishment of co-principals, and the liability of accomplices who do not participate in the conduct;

A. In a case where the number of persons mobilized in a demonstration is more than 100 persons, and the spawns and spawns were prepared in advance in the means and methods are used, and the spawns and spawns and spawns were spawned, and the spawns were spawned by taking out the spawns and spawns and spawns, etc. are arrested near the police box, the above demonstration constitutes a demonstration which clearly poses direct threat to public safety and order by means of collective violence, intimidation, destruction, fire prevention, etc. In light of the purpose, preparation status, process, method of the demonstration, etc., the defendants who participated in the demonstration or participated in the demonstration, who were willing to commit collective violence, damage, etc., or have been anticipated to have been able to do so.

B. University students refused to comply with the request of the police for release on the ground that the Defendants were illegally kidnapped, detained, or detained five police lines at all times on the ground of impossible conditions, notwithstanding the police’s request for release. In order for the police officers to rescue from the kidnapped police lines, the president of the said university immediately before entering the library building, which is the place of agriculture, was notified of this fact to the president of the said university, and the president did not comply with the request, and the Defendants did not comply with the request, and the police officers’ entry into the library building without a search and seizure warrant is deemed legitimate execution of duties by public officials.

C. The crime of death or injury caused by special obstruction of public duty is a result of a serious crime, and if the result can be predicted by the actor. Thus, the defendants can expect that many people might die or die in the event of an accident to the public by taking into account the inside of the high-rise building where there are many combustible materials, such as boxes, etc. where there are many combustible materials, such as fire fighting diseases, and the stairs, etc. are installed in the entrance of the building at the port of the building by setting up against the entry of the police along with students in the library, and each obstacle may be installed in a drum and be on the face, and there is no possibility for the defendants to have any possibility of predicting the result of the death, etc. caused by fire, etc. in light of the inside of the general experience.

D. The suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement in the search does not appear to have been made in a particularly reliable state because the defendant, who was the suspect, affixed a signature and seal in the court and recognized the authenticity of the petition.

E. The conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the co-principal, is sufficient if there is a combination of the intent to jointly commit the crime among the accomplices. The combination of the doctors is established even if all the accomplices do not gather at the same time, at the same place, in a successive and implied manner without gathering, and even if they were made at the same time and at the same time, they are held liable for the other accomplices' acts even if they did not participate in the conduct.

A. Article 5(1)2(b) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 136 and 144(c) of the Criminal Act; Articles 15(2) and 144(2)(d) of the Criminal Act; Articles 312 and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act / (e) Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

A. B. Supreme Court Decision 90Do763 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Dong) (Gong1980, 12894). Supreme Court Decision 80Do796 delivered on May 27, 1980 (Gong1980, 12894). 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983, 695), 90Do766 delivered on June 22, 1990 (Dong). Supreme Court Decision 83Do1019 delivered on June 14, 1988 (Gong118), 87Do2048 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong198, 204). 98Do19698 delivered on June 14, 1985 (Gong1988, 197).

Defendant 1 and eight others

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant 2, 3, and 4)

Attorney Long-Gyeong-Gyeong and 17 others

Busan High Court Decision 89No984 delivered on February 21, 1990

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be calculated by adding 110 days to the imprisonment for each of the defendants 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below based on the records. Defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 et al. were organized and supervised the demonstration as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act at the time of original adjudication. The majority of the persons mobilized for the demonstration, such as the contents of original adjudication, are more than 0 million persons, and the stones and spawds were prepared in advance in the means and methods, and the spawds and spawds were spads and spads and spads and spads were used, and the measures of the court below to recognize the fact that the spads and spads were spads and spads and arrested nearby, were not unlawful, and all of the aforementioned measures of the court below did not constitute a direct threat to public safety and order by means of collective violence, threat, etc., as set forth in Article 5 (1) 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the aforementioned measures of the court below are justified or justified.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, as at the time of the original adjudication, the defendants conspired to request the release of nine students who were engaged in a demonstration during the process of the demonstration, and the defendants may also be found to have moved five (5) prior to arrest to the Dong University's Home University underground room, the student community center's office and the fourth seminars office, and the library building, which is the agricultural place of this case, and detained until the departure on May 3, 1989, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and it cannot be said that the defendant 1 did not participate at the time of the arrest of five (5) persons prior to

(3) We examine the grounds of appeal on the death or injury caused by special obstruction of public duty.

(A) As seen in the judgment below, the Defendants were illegally arrested and detained five former police officers, and the Defendants refused to comply with the request for release on the ground of impossible conditions (the request for release to the Nonindicted Party, for whom the warrant of detention was applied, even though the police was able to release eight students who were involved in the police) despite the police’s request for release on several occasions, and the police did not comply with the opinion of the president of the Dong University, who was notified immediately before entering the library building, which is a farming place, to seek five former police officers, before entering the library building, and there is an urgent need to remove the current illegal confinement and arrest criminals. Accordingly, entering the library building without a search and seizure warrant is a lawful performance of duties by a public official, and five police officers were safe prior to the confinement, or the student’s resistance from the library, taking into account the situation that may arise from the school’s resistance within the library, and thus, the police did not err in executing the preventive measures against the instant accident, such as failure to comply with the requirement for prevention of the instant accident.

(B) According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the Defendants decided to strongly block the Defendants from entering the police library building by setting ice rinks, etc. against the entry of the police library. The entrance entrance district of the library building is an empty drums, etc. The stairs, etc. between the first floor and the fourth floor of the library are installed due to books and bends, etc., and the 7th floor of the university room, the corridor of the 1st floor of the library, the 1st floor of the library, and the second floor of the 1st to the 4th floor of the library, and the stairs leading to the 8,9th and the second floor of the 8, and the 9th class of the 7th class of the university room where the flive materials, such as the suspension of flive disease, were concentrated on oil, and the 7th class of the 7th class of the 6th class of the flive and the 7th class of the 7th class of the flive and the 7th class of the fire.

(C) The crime of the obstruction of performance of special duties is established when the crime of the obstruction of performance of official duties causes the death or injury of a public official by means of violence or intimidation against an organization or a public official performing duties while carrying dangerous objects. As a result, the result of the crime is established when the actor does not intend to do so, and it is sufficient to anticipate the occurrence of the result. As such, it is reasonable to accept the appeal that the defendant et al. did not have the possibility of predicting the occurrence of the death, etc. caused by the fire in light of the indoors of high-rises where the chemical substance such as the above recognition is likely to spread by the fire caused by the fire of the flame, and it is possible to expect that a large number of people can die or die in case of the fire in light of the indoors of the high-rise building where the behavior team is narrow (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248, Mar. 8, 1983).

(4) We examine the grounds of appeal against the existing crime of causing death or injury to a structure.

(A) The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor contains admissibility of evidence unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant who was the suspect was a signatory in the court, and that the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office was made under unrecognizable circumstances since he was not free of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do1011, Jun. 14, 1983). According to the records, the defendant 2, 7, and 9 acknowledged the fact that the prosecutor's signature of each protocol of interrogation of the above defendants prepared by the prosecutor at the court of first instance. Further, considering the progress of the confession of the crime of this case in the prosecutor's office, the contents of the protocol, the academic background and intelligence of the defendants, etc., it is not proven that the above defendants made a statement without discretion when being investigated by the prosecutor's office, and thus, the appeal is without merit

(B) The conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the co-principal, is sufficient when there is a combination of intent to jointly commit the crime among the accomplices, and the combination of doctors is established when all the accomplices do not gather at the same time, at the same place, in a successive and implied manner, and the co-offenders are subject to criminal liability for the other accomplices' acts even if they did not participate in the actual act. The evidence duly admitted by the court below reveals that the remaining Defendants except the defendants 3 and 4 enter the library for the escape of the crime from the front time and enter the library to prevent them from entering the spawn and leaving the spawn with oil, etc. in the library building and the 7th floor fire-fighting room of the above Defendants by sharing their action and preventing them from entering the spawn with the existing building, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to the co-principal's negligence.

(5) We examine the grounds of appeal against Defendant 1 on the violation of the National Security Act.

In the original adjudication, the contents of the expressive materials acquired by Defendant 1 are to deny the independence of Korea’s independence, to cite the Kim Il-sung’s ideology, and to bar the hostile unification, and it is recognized that there is an obvious danger that may endanger the existence and stability of the State or endanger the liberal democratic fundamental order. Therefore, the lower court’s incomplete deliberation or the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the National Security Act, such as the litigation, is unreasonable.

(6) As to sentencing:

As argued by appellant, all of the Defendants were primary students, and the purpose of fire prevention was to prevent or delay the entry of the police, and the police did not intend to kill and injury police officers. In entering operations, even if the police delayed installation of safety nets, safety strings, etc. around the building, and the damage was increased due to the failure to thoroughly cope with the fire caused by the chemical spawnives, even though the result of the instant crime was serious, the accident that the consequences of the instant crime were seriously shocks in society, and the method of his own assertion by using violent means should not be paid in our society, and considering the character, character, intelligence and environment of the Defendants, relationship with the victim, the process of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing prescribed in Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be deemed to be significantly unfair, and the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for 7 years and 38 years cannot be viewed as grounds for appeal.

(7) We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the judgment of the court below and the records of the court of first instance, we affirm the judgment below that there is no evidence to acknowledge each of the facts charged as to the murder and attempted murder of the defendant 2 and the facts charged against the defendant 3 and 4, and the intention of the murder and the fire prevention against the defendant 4, and there is no error in the violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and the judgment of the court below that the crime of murder against the defendant 2 is not established as long as the existing structure and the crime of murder is established, unless the intention of the murder is recognized as a crime of murder. Thus, the judgment of the court below is omitted.

Therefore, all appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor are dismissed, and one hundred days of detention days after the appeal are included in the imprisonment with prison labor for Defendants 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)