A. The crime under Article 2 of the National Security Act requires that the subject of the act is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who is subject to its order.

(b) Only if a person who becomes aware of military secrets in connection with his duties discloses them to an enemy country, a crime of espionage provided by Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act shall be established.

C. Since a counter-espionage enters Korea at the same time as a counter-espionage was commenced, a counter-espionage may be deemed to have assisted if agreed on the method of contact with a partner.

A. The crime under Article 2 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 60) requires that the subject of the act shall be a member of an anti-government organization or a person who was ordered to be a member of an anti-government organization.

B. This Article will apply to any act of divulging military secrets, regardless of their duties, known to the enemy country.

C. A counter-espionage is a counter-espionage that has agreed on the method of contact with a espionage since a counter-espionage enters the Republic of Korea area at the same time and began a counter-espionage act.

Article 2 of the National Security Act, Articles 98 and 99 of the Criminal Act

July 10, 1959 4292 Form 197

Defendant 1 and one other

Incheon support in the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 70No790 decided October 27, 1970

Of the original judgment, the guilty part is reversed;

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The first ground of appeal by the defense counsel is examined;

Article 2 of the National Security Act applies to cases where a member of an anti-government organization or a person who was ordered by it commits an act prescribed in Articles 92 through 99 of the Criminal Act for the accomplishment of its purpose. According to the facts constituting a crime of the first instance judgment cited by the original judgment, which was accepted by the defendant, even though the defendant was aware that he was a counter-espionage who was pro-child at the time of June 25, 200, who was the first instance court, was aware of the fact that he was an anti-government organization and was ordered by the order from the time of June 25, 200, in the future, he was aware of the fact that the non-indicted was a counter-party to whom he was ordered by the court below, so that he was aware of the fact that he was an anti-government organization, and therefore, he was able to agree with the non-indicted's act of a counter-party, and aided the above act and assisted the above act, and then, he did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 2 of the National Security Act.

The second ground of appeal is examined;

Even though the Defendants knew that pro-friendly balone who was North Korea at the time of June 25, 200, was a counter-state organization that was sphere and was sphere after being sphere after being sphere after being sphereed in the future, they agreed to enter the place of contact with the Defendant balone by the contact method with the Defendant balone, 400-20, Seoul National University Act, 2 years, and 2 years of the Republic of Korea University Act, and 30-2 of the Republic of Korea, and agreed to contact with the Defendant balone with the name of the balone who was sphere at the time of June 25, 200, since the above balone was an act related to the sphere's entry into the territory of the Republic of Korea at the time of the Republic of Korea, and that the balone was a counter-espionage act that facilitates the performance of duties of the spher.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined;

3. A person who discloses military secrets to an enemy country under Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act refers to a case where a person who has learned military secrets in connection with his duties discloses them to an enemy country. Article 99 of the Criminal Act applies to the so-called "the so-called military secrets known to an enemy country regardless of his duties." Since it is not necessary to modify this, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act as to the fact of a crime recognized by the original judgment clearly that the defendant et al. did not have exclusive knowledge in connection with his duties, and this is therefore affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined;

When comprehensively reviewing each evidence cited in the judgment of the first instance court, which cited by the original judgment, based on the records, the fact that both of the defendants disclosed military secrets as shown in the facts of the crime, as in the contact between the defendant and his return in a counter-espionage site, can be acknowledged. Therefore, the lower court recognized the defendants as co-offender, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine of the accomplice, or admitting facts without using evidence, cannot be deemed to be erroneous. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined;

The judgment of the first instance, which cited by the original judgment, was obvious by the written judgment that each suspect examination protocol against the defendant, etc. prepared by the judicial police officer was not admitted as evidence, and the next defendant, etc. acknowledged the authenticity of each suspect examination protocol against the defendant, etc. prepared by the public prosecutor, and asserted that he was unfairly treated from the prosecutor. Thus, the lower court did not err by viewing that the statement of the fourth suspect examination protocol and other suspect examination protocol prepared by the public prosecutor was voluntarily made under particularly reliable circumstances, and thus, it cannot be said that there was any error because the lower court acknowledged the admissibility of evidence.

Therefore, without proceeding to decide on the grounds for appeal in the above appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu