Whether the crime of erosion provision to a espionage and prevention of a espionage is established.

It is difficult to readily conclude that a espionage aiding and abetting a espionage solely on the fact that a espionage was aware of the fact that she was a espionage.

Article 2 of the National Security Act and Article 98 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1661 delivered on January 31, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 3630 delivered on November 31, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 15Do15 delivered on July 15, 196 and summary of decision Article 98(31)1267 of the Criminal

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul District Court (68Da11337)

(1) All appeals filed by the Prosecutor and the Defendant 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed.

The number of days under detention prior to the rendering of a judgment in the trial shall be 10 days each time in the original sentence against the defendant 2 and 3.

The part on Defendant 4 in the original judgment shall be reversed.

Article 22 of the Civil Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and suspension of qualifications for two years.

One hundred days from among the detention days prior to the imposition of the original sentence against Defendant 4 shall be included in the original sentence.

x. As regards Defendant 4, the execution of the principal sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(1) The gist of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel is as follows: (a) although the Defendant, as a espionage Nonindicted 2’s punishment, recommended the number of Nonindicted 2 to whom Nonindicted 2 had been sphered, but was sphered for a failure, and had been sphered for a long time; (b) it was found in Nonindicted 2’s suspicion that he would give 50,000 money (the money at the time) and committed an act leading to the recognition of the blood body; (c) KRW 70,000 won of the money received from Nonindicted 2 was repaid by the Defendant; and (d) the sentencing of the lower court imposed an imprisonment for life on the basis of the refusal of the order of North Korea sphere; and (e) the sentencing of the lower

B. The gist of Defendant 2’s first ground of appeal is that: (a) the Defendant believed that Nonindicted 2 would surrenders himself to the police; and (b) the Defendant was aware of his clothes, etc.; and (c) the Defendant’s act under the direction of Defendant 1, his father, which is his father, did not assist Nonindicted 2’s counter-espionage activities; (b) the lower court, despite that it was not aiding and abetting Nonindicted 2’s counter-espionage activities, determined the Defendant as a crime of aiding and abetting the espionage; and (c) the summary of the second ground of appeal

【Defendant 1’s summary of Defendant 3’s appeal is that the Defendant was at the age of 20 at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and the Defendant was placed in the preparation for university entrance examinations, and thus, Nonindicted 2 was unaware of the fact that he was at the seat of Nonindicted 2, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that he was punished by the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting the Defendant, and the summary of the second ground of appeal is that the Defendant was not reported to the authorities concerned due to burning and burning, and the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable in light of such circumstances.

x) The gist of the first ground for appeal by Defendant 4 is that the defendant provided meals, etc. that Nonindicted Party 2 did not know that he was a counter-espionage, and that he could contact his wife, and the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, and the summary of the second ground for appeal, and the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable, and the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate.

(v)a summary of the grounds for appeal by Nonindicted 1, the defense counsel of Defendant 2, 3, and 4, as well as his defense counsel, is based on the direction of Defendant 2, 3, and 4, the most advanced defendant 1, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below rendered a judgment of conviction despite the absence of the family system in Korea;

⑹ 검사의 항소이유의 요지는, 피고인 1은 공소외 2로부터 간첩활동을 지시받고 북괴 노동당에 가입하고, 공작금도 받고 북괴와 연락 간첩활동을 하였으며, 피고인 2, 3은 대학을 졸업한 지성인으로서 공소외 2의 간첩활동을 방조하였고, 피고인 4는 개전의 정이 없으니 원심의 형량은 너무 가벼워서 부당하다는 것이다.

Therefore, the court below's decision on each of the above grounds for appeal can be seen as the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel, and considering the various circumstances revealed in the record, there is no circumstance that the court below should have treated the defendant less somewhat. Thus, the court below's decision should be appropriate, and the above argument is groundless.

Next, considering the facts alleged in the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the grounds of appeal by the attorney non-indicted 1 as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant 2 and 3, it is sufficient to recognize the charges of this case against the defendant 2 and 3 if the court below gathered the evidence employed by the court below and the statements of the defendants in the trial court. Thus, the fact finding by the court below did not err as alleged above, and the so-called punishment cannot be deemed to exist at the time of the original trial by the defendant 2 and 3.

Next, even if considering the various circumstances described in the health care unit record and the trial court on the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 as to the unreasonable sentencing alleged by Defendant 2 and 3, it cannot be found that the court below had to treat Defendant 2 and 3 less exceptionally, and thus, the court below’s sentencing is appropriate. Accordingly, the above argument is groundless.

Next, according to the original judgment, we examine the facts alleged in Defendant 4's first ground for appeal. According to the original judgment, we examine the following facts: (a) the statement made by Defendant 1 in the original judgment; (b) the statement made by Defendant 2,3, and 4 in each court; and (c) the part consistent with the facts in each suspect examination protocol made by the prosecutor against the Defendants in this case; and (d) the fact that Nonindicted 2, who was removed from the Republic of Korea as a espionage on September 21, 1961, knew that he was a espionage, he provided the defendant 2 with an assistance to the fact-finding at the time of the 25th day of that month; and (b) the court below provided the defendant 2 with an assistance and assistance to the defendant 2 to return the 15th day of that month, and provided the defendant 21th day of that 4th day of that month with an assistance and assistance to the defendant 21th day of that 3th day of that month, even though there was no assistance and assistance to the defendant 214th day of that.

Ultimately, since the part of the original judgment against Defendant 4 in the original judgment cannot be maintained without any judgment on the remaining grounds for appeal, it shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the facts and evidence that Defendant 4 acknowledged against Defendant 4 are aiding and abetting Nonindicted 2 (section 3 at the market) and the facts and evidence that Defendant 4 provided convenience to Nonindicted 2 is the same as the facts and evidence recorded in the original judgment, except in cases where it is changed that Defendant 4 provided convenience to Nonindicted 2, and thus, it shall be cited by the latter part of Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Since the court below's decision in the law falls under Article 7 of the Anti-Public Law, defendant 4's imprisonment is sentenced to two years. According to Article 16 of the same Act and Article 11 of the National Security Act, the suspension of qualification is imposed concurrently against defendant 4 during the above term of imprisonment and the 170 days out of the detention days before the judgment of the court below is applied Article 57 of the Criminal Act to the above principal sentence against defendant 4. Thus, it is reasonable to suspend the execution of the above imprisonment in accordance with Article 62 of the Criminal Act, since it is reasonable to allow the suspension of execution of the above imprisonment in case of defendant 4 when considering the circumstances and motive at the time of the crime of this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, which are shown in the record, are obvious enough to be taken into account, etc.

Next, the prosecutor's grounds for appeal are examined as to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal, and the court below's above sentencing as to Defendant 1, 2, and 3 is all appropriate, and the part of the court below's judgment as to Defendant 4 was reversed. Thus, the above ground for appeal is groundless (the defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal as to Defendant 3 was submitted after the lapse of the period, and thus, it is not determined).

Therefore, the part against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 in the original judgment is just and all appeals against the above three defendants and the prosecutor's above three defendants are without merit. Thus, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 110 days out of the number of detention days before the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the original judgment against Defendants 2 and 3 and the original judgment against Defendants 2 and 3.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Man-hun (Presiding Judge) Counsel