The case holding that the crime of non-disclosure is not constituted.

In the event that a counter-espionage of North Korea and praises and encourages his activities, the crime of not notifying a counter-espionage is not established separately in addition to the crime of meeting as provided in Article 5 (1) of the Anti-Public Law and the crime of not notifying a counter-espionage in addition to the praise and not guilty.

Articles 4, 5, and 8 of the Antipublic Law

Supreme Court Decision 74Do3753 delivered on February 10, 1975 (Kaod 10947; Supreme Court Decision 23 ① type15; Supreme Court Decision 9(2)1390 pages 1390; Court Gazette 511No8372 Decided February 10, 1975)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 74Gohap43 delivered on July 1, 200

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months and suspension of qualifications for one year and six months.

The fifty-five days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

The seized one ticket of 19-1, 22-1 (No. 1, 22) shall be confiscated against the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of not notifying is acquitted.

The gist of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is unfair because it is too unfortunate. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel, the first point is that the defendant did not act in concert with the activities of an anti-government organization even though he did not encourage it to act in concert with the activities of an anti-government organization, and the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant of mistake of facts, and the second point is too unreasonable.

Therefore, if the court below examines evidence duly examined and adopted as to the first ground for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel, in comparison with the record, the defendant knew that the defendant 1 was a disguised return espionage by the defendant 1 at the court of first instance, and hear the statements that the non-indicted 1 1 helps anti-government organizations such as aiding and abetting his activities for publicity of North Korea and encouraging it to do so at each meeting, and therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts that the non-indicted 1 praises anti-government organizations such as encouraging and encouraging his activities for publicity of North Korea, and there is no error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below at this point.

Then, according to the record as to the part of the crime of false accusation, the court below held that the Defendant, despite being aware of a espionage that Non-Indicted 1’s espionage was a disguised espionage, and that Non-Indicted 1 met with him at each meeting and that he was pro-government organization, such as inciting and encouraging his activities to promote North Korea’s abduction, and that Non-Indicted 1 in wartime did not notify it to the investigation intelligence agency even though Non-Indicted 1 was aware that she was a disguised espionage, it is evident that the court below recognized all the criminal facts of the crime of false accusation, such as meeting, rubber, etc., and punished each of these crimes as concurrent crimes.

However, it shall be reasonable to view that the Defendant’s meeting with Nonindicted Party 1, a espionage who was a disguised agent in North Korea, and the Defendant’s assembly and the crime of not notifying the Defendant separately, in addition to those crimes, other than those committed by those who committed the crime such as aiding and abetting, etc., during which he committed such a crime, cannot be viewed as committing the crime of not notifying the Defendant. As seen above, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of the crime of not notifying the Defendant by recognizing each of the crimes, such as meeting with the Defendant and the encouragement of obscenity, etc., was erroneous in the application of the law.

Therefore, the party members omitted the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and the second ground for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the decision is again

Criminal facts

Defendant

1) During the first instance court’s meeting with a person who was aware of the fact that the defendant 1 was a espionage who was returned to North Korea, and that the defendant 1 was aware of the fact that he would be an interest in anti-government organization by praiseing the North Korea as an anti-government organization, and slandering the Republic of Korea at each time, at the house of the head of the non-indicted 1 in Mapo-dong and the house of the defendant from July 1969 to July 197;

2) At the time of the meeting as referred to in the preceding paragraph, Nonindicted 1’s remarks that praises North Korea by Nonindicted 1 during the war, and “the industry has been developed because of planned economy. A counter-espionage Nonindicted 2’s birth by shotizing the birth of Nonindicted 2 would be the brush of the power or the revolution. That is, Nonindicted 3 (Self-denunciation) who sealed Nonindicted 2, is in custody of the beer (Evidence No. 1 and 2). As such, Nonindicted 1’s activities for North Korea propaganda, such as one-time read, and Nonindicted 3 (Self-denunciation) who read Nonindicted 2, is an bad frush, is encouraging, and Nonindicted 1’s soon as he was brought from North Korea, and that it is favorable for anti-government organizations, such as searching for the brus and Kim Il-il by lending and reading Kim Il-il.

The facts of the court below's decision

1. Statement consistent with some facts set forth in the ruling at the court of the defendant;

1. Each statement in the trial records of the court of first instance consistent with the facts set forth in the judgment of the defendant and non-indicted 1;

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant and non-indicted 1 prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to the facts indicated in the judgment

1. Since the facts in the judgment are recognized in full view of the existence, etc. of two copies (No. 1 and No. 2) that have been seized, the evidence of the judgment is sufficient.

Article 5(1) of the Anti-Public Act and Article 4(1) of the same Act provide that a meeting held in the judgment of the court below (1) shall be held as follows: (a) and Article 5(2) of the same Act provide that the above shall be held as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; (b) as the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the same Act are committed, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor within one year and six months; (c) suspension of qualifications under Article 16 of the Anti-Public Act, Article 11 of the National Security Act shall be concurrently imposed on the defendant during the period of detention before the sentence of the court below under Article 57 of the same Act, and five days during the period of detention before the sentence of the court below shall be included in the above sentence; and (d) the seized be held as joint crimes under Article 48 of the Criminal Act (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, inasmuch as the Defendant, from July 1969 to July 1, 1969, knew that the Defendant was a disguised espionage by Nonindicted Party 1 in the first instance trial, did not notify it to the investigative intelligence agency, as seen in the above grounds for reversal judgment, as long as the Defendant was the principal who committed the crime, such as having met with Nonindicted Party 1, and encouraging and encourage his activities to promote North Korea’s abduction, and was found guilty of the Defendant’s crime, such as the former part, the Defendant’s failure to notify Nonindicted Party 1 to the investigative intelligence agency and cannot constitute a separate crime of non-disclosure. Moreover, even if examining records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant committed the crime of non-disclosure.

Therefore, under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the charged facts of the crime of non-disclosure shall be pronounced not guilty.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)