(a) Voluntary statement of evidence collected by an investigative agency;

B. Method of determining the Voluntaryness of the statement

C. The existence of the so-called circumstantial guarantee of credit and the standard of judgment on the strong contract

(d) Whether the study of food, clothing and religion violates subparagraph 1 of martial law (No. 27 October 1979) and Decree No. 10 (No. 18 May 18, 1980), since it does not fall under the ordinary pure or religious exercise;

E. Whether martial law is unconstitutional under the Martial Law and the Martial Law No. 1 (O. 27, 1979), No. 10 (O. 18, 1980) and the Act on Assembly and Time

(f) The meaning and degree of recognition of "act of benefiting anti-government organizations" under Article 7 (1) of the National Protection Act.

(g) Contact communication and conspiracy with the criminal in a successive manner (affirmative);

(h) Joint principal offenders committed against competitors who do not share the action;

I. Determination criteria and requirements for the recognition of a justifiable act as a ground for exclusion of illegality

(j) Whether the act of concealment of an offender and the act of offer made so as to escape constitutes a lawful act on duty (negative)

(k) Purport of the grounds for appeal on unreasonable sentencing

(l) Whether the inevitable nature of a crime can be a condition for sentencing (negative)

(m) Whether there is a dolusent perception of fire prevention to buildings in which many people exist and of human life damage (affirmative);

(n) Whether the self-denunciation of a person who has not shown before the opening and the reason for mitigation of punishment are as follows (negative)

(o) Reasons for retaining the death penalty system;

(n) The reason why the death penalty shall be maintained in relation to the crime of death or bodily injury;

A. The phrase "voluntaryness of statements" means that there are circumstances under which advisers, violence, intimidation, unreasonable prolonged detention of body restraint, deception, or other acts of voluntarment of statements are made, that is, there is no illegality in the process of collecting evidences, and such circumstances are deemed to belong to the same case in light of the provisions of the Constitution or the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the voluntariness of statements is presumed to be presumed.

B. With respect to the voluntariness of a statement, the court shall freely make a decision in consideration of the form and contents of the pertinent protocol (the right to refuse to make a statement and the contents thereof are recorded after recording the right to refuse a statement and reading out the contents thereof, and then sign and seal, etc. to confirm that the person who made the statement does not make any clerical error or any change in the number of statements), status, social status, academic background, intelligence level, and other circumstances, if the person who made the statement is not the defendant, and if the person who made the statement is not the defendant, the court shall make a decision on the voluntariness of the statement to the defendant or the prosecutor.

C. The so-called circumstantial guarantee of credibility is based on the following grounds: (a) recognition of facts unfavorable to a person himself/herself or confessions are difficult to expect reproduction and is strong in truth; (b) when such statement was made in the presence of a judge after a public prosecution, it can be the most reliable when it was made; and (c) it cannot be uniformly concluded that the statement made by an investigative agency is relatively weak in credibility and truth; and (d) there are often cases where the statement is far away from the truth as contacts with the outside and concerns about the future are increased after the lapse of time after the crime, and therefore, the existence of the so-called circumstantial guarantee of credibility and its lectures cannot be determined depending on specific matters.

D. Even if the study of food is a learning group through the dialogue or experience of the believerss, it is not exempt from the application of Martial Law No. 1 (O. 27, 1979) by stipulating that all indoor assemblies should be permitted, and that no exception exists. No. 10 (O. 17, 1980) of the Cabinet Order No. 10 (O. 17, 1980) prohibits indoor assemblies. However, an indoor assembly, which is not a political activity purpose, should be reported, should be excluded from coming-of-age, marriage, funeral and marriage, and ordinary non-political or religious events. Thus, the above gathering by the Defendant, etc., who did not obtain permission from the authorities of martial law, violates the above Martial Law No. 1 and No. 10.

E. Even if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution is limited by itself, it is permitted to the extent that it does not go against public order, public safety, and public welfare, etc., and thus, the Act on Assembly and Demonstration enacted to protect the public safety and order and protect the lives and property of the people is not contrary to the Constitution. Thus, the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, enacted to protect the assembly and demonstration and to protect the public safety and order and to protect the lives and property of the people, is not contrary to the Constitution.

F. The term “act of benefiting an anti-government organization” under Article 7(1) of the National Security Act refers to an act that objectively serves as the benefit of an anti-government organization. There is dolusent perception that the contents of the act can be objectively recognized as an interest of an anti-government organization. There is no need for an awareness that there is a person with a normal mind or a considerable intelligence sense may recognize that the act is favorable to, or benefit from, an anti-government organization, and there is no need for an awareness that the act is in

G. In the establishment of the co-principal, the conspiracy between the co-principals and the commission of the crime are carried out on the same date and time of all the offenders, and in order without gathering at the same place, the contact between the criminal's will will be carried out in a comprehensive or individual communication or perception with regard to the contents of the crime.

H. The co-principal is established by having committed a crime with the awareness of the co-principal, and is established by having committed a single criminal act as a group as a co-principal, and even if all the competitors do not have to share the criminal act and do not share the criminal act, if there are several co-principals formed by the conspiracy and did not share the criminal act, it cannot be exempt from the principal offender’s liability as a co-principal even if they did not share the criminal act.

(i) Whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act should be reasonably and reasonably determined depending on specific cases, and the legitimacy of the act cannot be avoided from the national order. However, in order to recognize a legitimate act, first, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, second, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, second, the reasonableness of the means or method, fourth, the formation of the legal interest right between the protected interest and the infringed interest, fifth, the urgency-Fifth, must meet the requirements, such as the absence of any other means or method other than the act.

(j) It is not because the act of a sexual ex officio does not go against the social norms and thus the legality of the act of a sexual ex officio is granted is not because it is the act of a sexual ex officio, but because the act of a sexual ex officio is recognized as a political party and legality. Thus, the crime of an ex officio ex officio is not limited to the act of not actively filing an accusation against a person, but the act of actively making a criminal such as preparing a correspondence, offering a fund for escape, etc. is not deemed to belong to the legitimate duty of the ex officio.

(k) Although the determination of punishment is an exclusive authority of fact-finding judges, an appeal may not be filed on the ground of it, it is defined by the Act to correct a significant unreasonable sentencing, and under the legal system that does not state the grounds for the determination of punishment, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is exceptionally allowed from two purports, namely, reducing a significant individual difference in the determination of punishment by fact-finding judges and resolving the imbalance of punishment by generalizing the standards for sentencing by an appeal.

(l) If the inevitable nature of a crime is a primary legal idea and it refers to a self-defense or an emergency evacuation as a ground for the elimination of illegality, it has a strict requirement, as well as such reason is an issue of the denial of illegality of an act, and it does not constitute a condition for the determination of punishment.

(m) As a matter of course, it is anticipated that if multiple people prevent a fire to existing buildings, there is a loss of human life, and thus, there is a dolusent perception of the result of human life damage.

(n) The reason why a self-denunciation is not a legally necessary reason for mitigation of punishment, and the first reason why a person commits a crime is a reason for mitigation of punishment. Therefore, a self-denunciation that does not repent of the crime is a true self-denunciation that serves as a legal reason for mitigation of punishment even if the person surrenders himself/herself.

(o) It cannot be theoretically established that the death penalty should be damaged by taking away the life native to him/her from a humanitarian or religious point of view, on the other hand, he/she cannot escape another remaining life infringed by a crime, and does not understand the maintenance of life sentence for the well-being and order of the public in society, and this is the total will of the people appearing in the positive law of that country.

As the crime of fire prevention is a public danger crime that causes danger to an unspecified number of people's lives, bodies, and property and damages the peace of the public, the punishment is heavy for each country, and the punishment was imposed extremely on the crime of fire prevention. As such, Article 164 of the Criminal Act is deemed to be the punishment prescribed for life, and thus, the punishment of death should be deemed to be the punishment to be the punishment to be damaged.

(a) Article 309(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 312(d) of the Martial Law 1 (No. 27, 1979) and Article 313(e) of the Martial Law 10 (No. 17, 1980). Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 7(1)(h) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Article 30 of the 151(1) of the 1999 Act. Article 20(1) of the 151(k) of the 1999 Act. Article 383(1) of the 1999 Act. Article 164 of the 162(1)(f) of the 1989 Act.

Supreme Court Decision 71Do36 delivered on February 23, 1971, 4290Do380 delivered on June 12, 1959, 80Do224-1 delivered on November 25, 1980, 71Da2544 delivered on July 7, 1981, 71Da496 delivered on April 20, 1971, 75Do2720 delivered on July 27, 1976, 67Do988 delivered on September 19, 1967

A and 15 others

Defendants

Attorneys B and 4 others

Daegu High Court Decision 82No1399 delivered on December 13, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

Defendant C, Dong D, Dong E, Dong F, Dong F, Dong G, Dong H, Dong J, Dong J, Dong J, Dong K, Dong L, etc., shall be included in the imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant, etc. for 25 days after the appeal.

Defense Counsel B, Dong M, Dong N, DongO, DongO, Dong P, and each of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, Dong C, Dong D, Dong H, Dong H, Dong J, Q, Dong R, Dong R, Dong K, and Dong S are examined in order according to the following classification:

1. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 1 of the same purport by the defense counsel, etc., including Defendant A, Dong D, Dong H, Dong H, Dong K, etc. (with respect to the violation of the National Security Act by the Defendant, etc., and the Voluntary statement of Defendant A on the part of the present state building, fire prevention,

2. Each ground of appeal by the same defense counsel, etc. with the same purport as the grounds of appeal No. 2 and Defendant A, Dong C, Dong D, Dong H, Q, Dong K

3. The grounds of appeal No. 3 by the same defense counsel, etc. (whether the crime of causing death or injury to the present residential building and the crime of causing fire under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act is authorized to destroy North Korea leader)

4. The grounds of appeal No. 4 and the grounds of appeal No. 4 by the same defense counsel, etc. (the part of Defendant A’s ground of appeal No. 1 and the part of Defendant No. 1’

5. The grounds of appeal No. 5 by the same defense counsel, etc. (the legal principles as co-principal in the part of the defendant E and the F's present building, fire and death, and the part of the National Security Act

6. The grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 1 of the same purport by the defense counsel, etc. (the defendant J's concealment of the criminal, the part of convenience provision under the National Security Act, and the legal principles of legitimate act as grounds for excluding illegality)

7. Grounds of appeal by the same defense counsel, etc. to the same purport as Defendant A, Dong C, Dong D, Dong H, etc. (as to the determination of punishment), each ground of appeal (as to the determination of punishment)

8. Defendant J, Q, Dong R, Dong S, and other grounds of appeal

1. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 1 of the same purport by the same defense counsel, including Defendant A, Dong D, Dong H, Dong H, Dong K

1. At least two cases pursuing criminal procedures, namely, the guarantee of fundamental human rights and the discovery of substantial truth, are tasks to seek continuous research rather than theoretical or practical aspects. Accordingly, the Constitution declares the freedom of the body in Article 11, while the Constitution declares the freedom of arrest, detention, seizure, search, questioning, and security without legal consent, is not subject to forced labor without being sentenced to punishment. All citizens shall not be compelled to make any unfavorable statement to the criminal defendant without any adviser, and arrest, detention, seizure, search and seizure shall be subject to the warrant of the judge. When arrested and detained, any person may obtain counsel's assistance if arrested and detained, he/she may request the court to review the legitimacy of detention, and if confession and confession made by adviser, assault, threat, prolongedization of detention, deception or other means are the only evidence unfavorable to him/her, the Criminal Procedure Act directly examines the principle of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and establishes the provisions of the hearsay rule to guarantee the substantive human rights as the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

These various provisions say that the task of discovery of substantial truth in criminal procedure must be legally performed without infringing on fundamental human rights, so that the discovery of substantial truth must be realized by fair trial. The strictness of the procedure in criminal trial is an absolute decision in order to ensure fairness of trial, and that the guarantee of fundamental human rights cannot be achieved unless the fairness of trial is achieved. The issue of collection procedure required for the argument is one of the tasks related to the fairness of trial and strictness of procedure.

2. According to Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a protocol in which a public prosecutor makes a statement of a suspect or a person other than a suspect may be admitted as evidence when the formation thereof is genuine by the statement made by the person making the original statement on the trial date. A protocol in which a statement of a suspect was made by the defendant may be admitted as evidence only when such statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. According to Article 313 of the same Act, a protocol in which a statement or statement made by a defendant or a person other than the defendant is written may be admitted as evidence when it is proved that the formation thereof is genuine by the person who made such statement or the person who made such statement, or if it is signed or sealed by such person's statement, it may be admitted as evidence if it is proved that the formation thereof is genuine by the person who made such statement on the trial date and that the statement made by the defendant is made under particularly reliable circumstances. According to Article 317 of the same Act, it cannot be admitted as evidence that there is no reasonable evidence to suspect that the statement made by the defendant or a person other than the defendant is unlawful evidence.

In a case where the defendant contests the voluntariness of his statement, it is natural that the prosecutor has the burden of proving the voluntariness in the case where the prosecutor submits the protocol as evidence. However, the voluntartariness of his statement is consistent with the principle of the parties in that the prosecutor submits the protocol as evidence. However, since there is a correction that makes the person involved in adviser, assault, threat, physical restraint unreasonable prolongedness or deceit or other voluntartariness of his statement like the Constitution or the Criminal Procedure Act, it is not illegal in the process of collecting evidence, there is no such circumstance that makes the person lose the voluntariness of his statement in the process of collecting evidence, it is particularly belonging to this case, in light of the provisions of the Constitution or the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., so it is presumed that the voluntariness of his statement is presumed to be presumed to be presumed. Therefore, regarding the voluntariness of the statement, the form and content of the protocol in question, recording the right to refuse the statement and reading it, and read the contents thereof, and thus, it is not for the reason that it is freely distributed to the prosecutor.

From the same point of view, when the court below was examined several times, and the defendant et al. was notified that he had the right to refuse to make statements from a prosecutor whenever he is examined, and after the examination was completed, the prosecutor read the contents of the protocol, and signed and sealed the statement. The contents of the protocol include the defendant et al.'s partial rejection of the crime and the statement made by the court below and the trial court (the first instance court and the second instance court). The defendant et al. made statements that the prosecutor did not receive unfair treatment such as adviser et al., and the police officer took advantage of all the facts such as the lack of evidence to acknowledge that the defendant et al.'s assertion was made without permission and it was evident that there were no other reliable statements made by the prosecutor et al., and that there were no other reasons to suspect that there were no other reasons to believe that the statement made by the prosecutor and the second instance court was made without permission nor any other witness's testimony made by the prosecutor et al.

3. 한편 소론 논지는 제1심 증인 U와 원심증인 V의 증언을 제외하고는 적어도 공소사실을 입증할 만한 내용을 포함하고 있는 증언부분은 하나의 예외도 없이 전혀 찾아볼 수 없고, 위 증인들이 수사기관에서 작성하였음을 인정하는 자술서 또는 진술서의 기재 역시 대부분의 경우 법정에서의 증언과 크게 다를 것이 없어 증거로 삼을 만한 것이 전혀 없으며, 일부의 경우 입증의 자료로 볼 수 있을 듯이 보이는 것이 있으나 이러한 경우는 예외 없이 원진술자들이 법정에서의 증언에서 그 임의성 없는 진술임을 명백하게 하였거나 검사가 피고인 A나 또는 피고인 W등 구속된 피의자 등의 진술에 맞출 것을 요구하여 그대로 응하여 준 것으로서 사실이 아닌 것이 포함되어 있다고 진술하여 임의성과 신빙성이 없을 뿐만 아니라 증인이 수사기관에서 작성한 조서에 서명무인한 사실이나 그 내용대로 진술한 것이 틀림없다고 한 진술등 원심판결이 내세우고 있는 사정만으로는 검찰조서의 진정성립 조차 인정하기 어렵다고 하고 다시 경찰에서의 고문 등으로 임의성 없는 심리상태가 계속되고 있음을 이용하여 강압적인 분위기 아래에서 받아낸 검찰에서의 피고인 등의 자백은 임의성이 없다는 점에서도 증거능력이 없는 것이지만 그 진술이 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여진 것이 아니므로 신빙성의 정황적 보장이 없는 진술이라는 점에서도 증거능력이 없다고 한다. 그러나 첫째 논지가 지적하는 제1심 증인 U와 원심증인 V의 증언 외에도 제1심에서 환문한 증인 X, Y Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ 원심에서 환문한 증인 BA, BB, BC, T, BD 등의 각 증언이나 그들에 대한 각 진술조서 또는 그들 작성의 자술서기재 등에 원심판시 피고인들의 범죄사실을 증명할 만한 적지 않은 자료가 있음이 기록상 명백하고, 이들 중 일부 증인이 법정에서 그들의 자술서기재나 또는 그들에 대한 진술조서의 진술기재내용이 기억이 없다 또는 그런 뜻이 아니다라는 말로 다소 어긋나는 증언을 하고 있기는 하나 위 U 및 V 외에 제1심 및 원심에서 환문한 34명의 증인 (수사기관에서 작성한 진술조서나 자술서의 성립 등에 관하여 증언한 증인)중 제1심 증인 X, Y Z, AY만이 “그 진술내용은 마음 편하게 진술할 수 있는 상황이 아닌 상태에서 진술한 것이기 때문에 일부 사실과 다른 진술도 있다” “그때 조서받는 분위기는 매우 공포에 떨었고··· " 조사를 받을 때엔 방위병 신분이어서 심리적으로 다소 위축되어 있었기 때문에 사실과 다른 진술이 있었던 것으로 알고 있읍니다.” “그때 밤도 깊어가고 빨리 집으로 돌아가고 싶은 생각이 앞서 되도록이면 경찰이 요구하는 대로 써주었고 특히 경찰이 다른 사람도 이렇게 진술하고 있으니 참고해서 쓰라고 하기에 썼는데 실제로 그런 내용으로 자술서를 작성한 것인지 오래되어 기억이 나지 않읍니다.”라고 진술하고 있을 뿐 어느 증인도 경찰에서의 진술이나 자술서의 작성이 경찰의 엄문에 의한 것이며 검찰에서의 진술이 검사의 요구대로 진술한 것이라고 증언한 바가 없음이 기록상 명백하므로 논지는 과장 내지 허구라고 할 수밖에 없어 재론의 여지가 없고, 제1심 및 원심에서는 검사가 증인을 심문함에 있어 진술조서 또는 자술서를 제시하고 그 내용을 고지한 다음 서명 무인한 사실을 확인하고 있는바 이와 같은 절차에 따라 이 진술조서나 자술서는 원진술자나 작성자의 진술에 의하여 그 성립의 진정이 인정된 것이며, 논지 지적의 대법원판례는 검사의 심문에 대하여 이 사건으로 검찰, 경찰에서 진술한 내용은 그대로 틀림없다는 취지의 증언을 하고 있을 뿐이어서 위 진술이 과연 조서의 진정성립을 인정한 것인지 불분명하여 동 진술만으로서는 조서의 진정성립을 인정하기에 부족하다는 것이 그 판시취지로서 이 사건과 사안을 달리하여 적절한 것이 되지 못한다고 할 것이다. 다음 둘째로 이른바 신용성의 정황적 보장이란 사실의 승인 즉 자기에게 불이익한 사실의 승인이나 자백은 재현을 기대하기 어렵고 진실성이 강하다는데 근거를 둔 것으로서 때때로 특신상태라는 표현으로 잘못 이해되는 경우가 많은 것은 우리 형사소송법 체계상으로는 아직 생소한 개념이며 어떠한 것이 이에 해당하는 것인가를 정형화하기 어려움에 기인하는 것이라고 생각되나 일반적으로 자기에게 유리한 진술은 그 신빙성이 약하나 반대로 자기에게 불이익한 사실의 승인은 진실성이나 신빙성이 강하다는 관점에서 “부지 불각중에 한말” “사람이 죽음에 임해서 하는 말” “어떠한 자극에 의해서 반사적으로 한 말” “경험상 앞뒤가 맞고 이론정연한 말” 또는 “범행에 접착하여 범증은폐를 할 시간적 여유가 없을 때 한 말” “범행직후 자기의 소행에 충격을 받고 깊이 뉘우치는 상태에서 한 말”등이 특히 신용성의 정황적 보장이 강하다고 설명되는 경우이다. 따라서 반드시 공소제기후 법관 면전에서 한 진술이 가장 믿을 수 있고 그 앞의 수사기관에서의 진술은 상대적으로 신빙성, 진실성이 약한 것이라고 일률적으로 단정할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 오히려 수사기관에 검거된 후 제일 먼저 작성한 청취서의 진술기재가 범행사실을 숨김없이 승인한 것이었는데 그후의 수사과정과 공판과정에서 외부와의 접촉, 시간의 경과에 따른 자신의 장래와 가족에 대한 걱정 등이 늘어감에 따라 점차 그 진술이 진실로부터 멀어져가는 사례는 흔히 있는 것이어서 이러한 신용성의 정황적 보장의 존재 및 그 강약에 관하여서는 구체적 사안에 따라 이를 가릴 수 밖에 없는 것이므로, 원심거시의 피고인 등의 자백이나 참고인등의 진술 및 자술서의 기재는 그 진술이 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태하에서 행하여진 것이 아니라는 점에서 즉 신용성의 정황적 보장이 없는 진술이라는 점에서도 증거능력이 없다는 소론 논지는 신용성의 정황적 보장을 오해함에 기인하는 것으로 그 이유없음이 명백하다.

2. Grounds of appeal No. 2 by the same defense counsel, etc. and grounds of appeal No. 2 by the same purport as Defendant A, Dong C, Dong D, Dong H, Q, Dong Q, Dong K, etc.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that Defendant C, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong L et al. collected evidence and convened the above facts without the permission of the authorities under martial law; Defendant C, Dong C, Dong D, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong R, Dong R, Dong R, Dong L et al. conducted illegal assemblies which may cause considerable social anxiety; Defendant A, W, DongW, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, Dong H, and Dong L et al. to the promotion of North Korea 1, Article 17 of the Martial Law of 197 of the Martial Law of 196th Amendment of the Martial Law of 197th Amendment of the Martial Law of 197th Amendment of the Martial Law of 197th Amendment of the Martial Law of 197th Amendment of the Martial Law of 197th Amendment of the Martial Law of 197.

2. The so-called so-called so-called a so-called 's learning' does not stipulate exceptional provisions by providing that even if the defendant et al. is a learning group through the dialogue and experience of the master group, seminars, a member of a society, or a tracian, and even if the defendant et al. is a learning group through the conversation and experience of the master group, the above martial law spreading and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the above Decree does not stipulate any exceptional provisions by prohibiting indoor and overseas assemblies, and subparagraph 10 of the above Decree prohibits indoor and overseas assemblies, but it is necessary to report indoor and overseas assemblies which are not political activities, but rather for the purpose of political activities, and the pure and non-political religious events, which are not for funeral and non-political activities, should not be permitted. Therefore, there is no room for the defendant et al.'s meetings such as the defendant et al. to be contrary to subparagraphs 1 and 10.

3. According to the facts established by the court below, the defendants are not likely to engage in an assembly or demonstration of the Republic of Korea for three-day old-old local governments or for four-day old-end educational institutes located in Gangwon-do, with a view to maintaining the public peace and order, and thus, the purpose of which is to protect the social security and order of the participants of the assembly or demonstration of the Republic of Korea is to ensure that the assembly or demonstration of the Republic of Korea's own free will and to maintain the public peace and order within the limit of the size of the assembly or demonstration of the nation's own free will and to protect the public peace and order of the members of the assembly or demonstration of the Republic of Korea's own free will and to protect the social security and order of the participants of the assembly or demonstration of the Republic of Korea's own free will and to protect the social security and order of the participants of the assembly or demonstration of the Republic of Korea's own free will, and there is no concern that the assembly or demonstration of the nation's own will be in violation of the public peace and order.

3. The same defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 3

1. Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act provides that "an act of benefitting an anti-government organization" means an act which objectively constitutes an interest of an anti-government organization, and there is dolusent perception that the contents of the act can be objectively recognized as an benefit of an anti-government organization, and that there is a need for awareness or benefit that the act may be benefit of an anti-government organization, and that the act does not require any awareness or intent to benefit an anti-government organization to benefit an anti-government organization.

2. 원심이 적법하게 확정한 사실에 의하면 피고인 등은 북괴가 인민민주주의 혁명전략으로 대한민국을 전복시키고 한반도 전역을 공산화하려는 야욕 아래 정부와 국민간 및 한·미간을 이간시키기 위해 중상모략과 허위선전, 선동등 온갖 책동을 다하고 있음을 알면서도 이에 편승하여 반미운동과 반정부 활동을 전개하여 사회혼란을 조성하는 한편 경제불황을 가중시킴으로써 민중봉기를 유도하여 현 정권을 전복시키겠다는 망상하에 먼저 부산 미국문화원에 방화함으로써 반미 및 반정부 투쟁의 기폭제로 삼을 것을 기도하고···1982.3.18. 14:00 정각 피고인 C, 동 G 등이 동 문화원 정면 출입구에 들어서면서 물통의 휘발유를 현관에 쏟자 동 H, 동 I는 미리 준비한 점화봉에 불을 붙여 집어 던져 공소외 BJ외 20여명의 사람이 현존하는 위 건물에 방화하고 이 시각에 때 맞추어 피고인 D는 위 BK백화점 4층에서 피고인 E, 동 F는 위 BL극장 3층에서 피고인 등이 발화와 함께 살포하기로 하여 제작한 “미국은 더 이상 한국을 속국으로 만들지 말고 이 땅에서 물러가라. 우리역사를 돌아 보건대, 해방이후 지금까지 한국에 대한 미국의 정책은 오직 경제적 수탈을 위한 것으로 일관되어 왔음을 알 수 있다. 소위 우방이라는 명목하에 국내 독점자본과 결탁하여 매판문화를 형성함으로써 우리민족으로 하여금 그들의 지배논리에 순종하도록 강요해 왔다. 우리 민중의 염원인 민주화 사회개혁통일을 실질적으로 거부하는 팟쇼군부정권을 지원하여 민족분단을 고정화시켰다. 이제 우리 민족의 장래는 우리 스스로 결정해야 한다는 신념을 가지고 이 땅에 판치는 미국 세력의 완전한 배제를 위한 반미투쟁을 끊임없이 전개하자 먼저 미국문화의 상징인 부산미공보원을 불태움으로써 반미투쟁의 횃불을 들어 부산시민들에게 민족적 자각을 호소한다”라는 내용의 삐라와를···(생략)···살포하였다는 것이다.

3. The Republic of Korea continues to be in a dynamic state with the North Korean No.12, the world and humanitarian proposal made by the government authorities of the Republic of Korea, which had been repeated, as well as the 1.12th century, to the effect that the Republic of Korea has instigated the government frank for the us and claimed the number of iron of usfk in the United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea by slandering the government whenever it is refused and opportunity to refuse the plan for peaceful unification. It cannot be denied that the content of the d from the completion of the above period that the Defendant et al. drafted to widely inform the Republic of Korea and its purpose in the prevention of the Busan U.S. Cultural Institute of Fire in order to widely inform the Republic of Korea and abroad of its significance and purpose, is consistent with the external propaganda of the North Korean No.12.

The defendant, etc. with a normal spirit and high knowledge through higher education, had a conclusive or dolusent perception that his so-called "in order to act in the propaganda activity of North Korea and to benefit or benefit anti-government organizations." However, the expression "waterer" in this land is nothing more than a dynamic or symbolic one, and this is a different basis from the assertion of the number of North Korea Armed Forces in this land, and the relief of the completion of preparation for North Korea's invasion is nothing more than a delivery of the letter that the military's illegal power is currently completing all North Korea's preparation as the military's illegal power, but if the military's unlawful power cannot be seen as a citizen's resistance, it merely represents the shock effect of the military examination and that the defendants did not know that there was no opportunity for the defendant's unlawful appeal during the public relations activities of North Korea.

Therefore, in this regard, the court below's decision that, at the time of the original judgment by the defendant et al., the so-called "the present building" under Article 164 of the Criminal Act and the crime of causing death or bodily harm to the present building under Article 164 of the Criminal Act and the crime of causing death or injury to an anti-government organization under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act, and thus,

4. The grounds of appeal No. 4 and Defendant A’s grounds of appeal by the same defense counsel

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant 1 was unable to enter and depart from the 19:00 Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government's office building so that the defendant could have a large amount of 1:50 square meters of fire fighting and fire fighting at the 2:0 Busan Metropolitan City's office, and that it would be difficult for the defendant 2 to widely take advantage of the fact-finding structure of the 1:3rd City's office building and fire fighting in Busan Metropolitan City's office, and that it would be difficult for the defendant 1 to widely take advantage of the fact-finding structure of the 1:3rd City's office building and fire fighting and fire fighting in Busan Metropolitan City's office, and that it would be difficult for the defendant 2 to widely take advantage of the 2nd government's successful fire fighting and fire fighting in Busan Metropolitan City's office to take advantage of the 1:7th government's success and fire fighting of the 2nd government's office.

2. The arguments are as follows: (a) Defendant A and Dong W, C, etc. were indicted on the ground of the first instance trial and the first interrogation of the suspect; (b) Defendant A and the first interrogation of the suspect at the police; (c) but the third interrogation of the suspect: “I, however, have changed the statement that “I, however, executing fire-fighting to W, would be done again or after giving a new instruction,” but they should not be sent again to the prosecution; (d) the confession of Defendant was not voluntary or credibility; and (e) Defendant A is a person behind the fire-fighting case; (e) Defendant C, as an accomplice of the instant case, did not appear in front of the instant case; and (e) Defendant C would not have been aware of the fact that there was no new fire-prevention plan after receiving a fire-prevention plan from W; and (e) Defendant C would not have been aware of the fact that there was no means to prevent the fire-prevention plan after having been reported to Defendant B, but there was no way for Defendant C to do so.

3. However, the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor was already mentioned in the first of the above ruling, and even if the statement of the defendant was changed once during the third suspect interrogation process by the police, it is clear that the content itself is premised on the existence of a fire mother, and it cannot be concluded that there is no arbitrity in the confession of the defendant solely with such fact.

On the other hand, the circumstances of No. 1 were 80 or No. 9444, and there were 10 or No. 14444 or more, and there were 10 or more facts that the above W was about No. 140 or No. 944 or more, and that there were 1 or more facts about No. 9 or No. 140 or No. 100 or No. 9444 or more, or that there were 8 or more facts about No. 1 or No. 944 or more, or that there were 8 or more facts about No. 1 or No. 944 or more, or that there were 9 or more of No. 1 or more of No. 1 or No. 9444 or more of No. 1 or No. 2, or that there were 9 or more of No. 3 or more of No. 1 or No. 2, or that there were no information about No. 3 or more of No. 1 or No.

5. The same defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 5

1. The conspiracy and the execution of the crime are joint principal offenders who jointly commit the crime with the awareness of the joint principal offender. However, the conspiracy and the execution of the crime are conducted without the conspiracy at the same date and time, and in order without the conspiracy at the same place, so if there was a comprehensive or individual communication or perception about the contents of the crime, there is a conspiracy of crime as a joint principal offender. Even if there was no direct participation in the execution of the crime, even if there was no direct participation in the act of the crime, it is distinguishable from that of another joint principal offender who aided and abetted the principal offender.

The aiding and abetting a principal offender is to facilitate the commission of the principal offender and the commission of the principal offender. The aiding and abetting act is not an action leading to the elements of the crime, but an act of aiding and abetting the principal offender, and it is necessary to anticipate the awareness and result that it is easy to implement the principal offender's act. On the other hand, a joint principal offender is to commit a crime with the awareness of a joint principal offender, and a joint principal offender is to commit a crime with the awareness of a joint principal offender, and it is established that there is a single criminal act of a group as a joint principal offender, and it is necessary for both the conspiracys to share and implement the act, and even if not, if there is no sharing of the principal offender's act, if there is a formation of a joint principal agent among several persons through a conspiracy, and even if it was not shared, it is to take the principal offender's liability as a joint principal offender at the time of grouping of the crime, and it cannot be overlooked that it is an important action for the crime.

2. Omission;

3. According to the above paragraph 1, if the defendant et al. collected evidences of the court below, such as the existence of printed articles containing the above contents as well as the statement of each suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant et al., the defendant et al., who had already been admitted to have the discretion to make statements, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant et al. when the defendant et al. spreaded printed articles containing the meaning of fire prevention, its purpose, fire prevention declaration, etc., in order with the defendant et al., the defendant et al., and even if the defendant et al. did not take part in the act of fire prevention, it is not possible to exempt the defendant et al. from the crime liability as a co-principal of fire prevention, as stated in the above paragraph 1, since the court below's reasoning that the defendant et al. did not take part in this part of this case's internal fire prevention plan and thus, it cannot be found that the defendant et al. did not take part in this part of this case's complaint and its related article.

6. Grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 3 of the same purport by the defense counsel, etc.

1. Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that an act by law as a legitimate act, an act by work, or other act which does not violate social norms shall not be punishable;

Even if there is no direct legal basis for the act as a justifiable act as a ground for the so-called illegal dismissal, that is, the act as a legitimate act as a right act under the laws and regulations, and that does not belong to the act as a basis or legitimate business under the laws and regulations, but that does not go against the social norms, the illegality of the act is dismissed according to the principle that the legitimate act is generally lawful.

Therefore, in any case, what kind of act is justified, should be determined rationally and reasonably according to the specific act, and the legitimacy of the act can not be avoided because it goes beyond the national living order.

Therefore, in order to recognize a legitimate act as a ground for illegality, first, the legitimacy that the motive or purpose of the act should be justified in light of sound social norms; second, the reasonableness that the means or method of the act should be reasonable; third, the formation of the legal interest right that the benefits to be protected by the act and the benefits to be infringed by the act should be balanced; fourth, the urgency that the act should be urgent and inevitable in light of the circumstances at the time of the act; fifth, it is necessary to supplement that there should be no other means or method other than the act or it should be considerably difficult.

2. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant

(1) On September 20, 1981, at around 20:00, Nonindicted Party BP was asked to go through Q Q and to provide information to the above BS on the following grounds: (a) he knew that he was a criminal of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; (b) he was aware that he was a criminal of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; (c) 3 days from the beginning of that month, he had the Dong be accommodated in the second floor of the above education center; and (d) he was a student related to the Gwangju case to BS at the same place at around 16:00 on the first half of the same month; and (c) 2 and 3 months after being asked to request to go again from the above BS, and (d) he was informed that he was a criminal of the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; and (d) 200 won was concealed to Q and deliver him to the above B, and (e) 200 won was concealed to Q.

(2) On June 7, 1980, from Non-Indicted Party B, a member of the Committee on Social Development in the Education Center, A, knowing that he was a criminal of violation of the Martial Law in relation to the above situation with Non-Indicted Party BU’s letter of intent to request convenience and, even though he was aware that he was a criminal of violation of the Martial Law in relation to the above situation, he provided the above education center’s second floor room and the second floor warehouse managed and operated by the defendant, provided accommodation, and supported that he was able to gather young people and students from the country and provided learning with 10,000 to 20,000 won each month, and concealed the criminal by providing them with money for 10,000 to 10,000 won each month;

(3) From 23:00 on March 18, 1982 to 22:00 on December 22, 198, a person who committed a crime of violating the National Security Act relating to the fire prevention of such cultural institute through such activities as Q Q, Dong's related news reports, etc., and various news reports, etc. related to the case, even though he/she knew that he/she had committed a crime of violation of the National Security Act between B and B from around 1982 to April 2 of the same year, he/she provided the above education center's second floor and the above underground room managed by him/her as a place for his/her clothes, while he/she provided him/herself with meals at around 15:0 on March 20 of the same year at the above education center and provided him/her with an escape rate of 50,000 won to B through Defendant Q Q, and then asked him/her to be present at around 11:30 on March 24, 200.

3. In the first instance trial, if the defendant's arguments were collected in accordance with the so-called and records of the defendant, the defendant's arguments were examined, and the defendant's statements were delivered to see all persons in this world as a crime, and the defendant's body was a new body with the status to request their conviction. However, the defendant's so-called "recognition" is not justified in its motive or purpose by exceeding the legitimate scope of duty as a private organization, and it is not reasonable in its motive or purpose, and it is not reasonable in the means or method, and when considering the legal interests infringed upon by the defendant's interest to be protected and the defendant's act, the so-called of the defendant was seriously lost, and it is difficult to recognize that it is either impossible or considerably difficult to choose different ways other than the act, or that it is the only method that is considerably difficult to do so.

The reason why the act of a sexual ex officio does not go against the social norms is not due to the fact that the act of a sexual ex officio is an act of a sexual ex officio, but is recognized as a political party, legality, and legitimacy of the act of a sexual ex officio. The reason why the crime is committed is that the act of a sexual ex officio is against the social norms, and that the act of a sexual ex officio is against the duty of a sexual ex officio, and that the act of a sexual ex officio is against the duty of a sexual ex officio. However, if the act of a sexual ex officio concealment is not against the social norms, and the act of a sexual ex officio concealment is not against the duty of a sexual ex officio, it cannot be considered as a legitimate act of a sexual ex officio concealment. Although the crime is committed against the duty of a sexual ex officio, it cannot be said that the act of a sexual ex officio concealment is against the good public order and good customs of a sexual ex officio, the act of a sexual ex officio concealment is not against the duty of a sexual ex officio. Even if it is not against the duty of a sexual ex officio.

7. Grounds of appeal No. 7 by the same defense counsel and the same grounds of appeal as Defendant A, Dong C, Dong D, Dong H, etc.

1. Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the grounds of appeal, provides that: (a) determination of facts and unfair sentencing may not be made in cases where death penalty, imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten (10) years, have affected the judgment; or (b) the determination of the amount of punishment is extremely unfair; (c) determination of facts and unfair sentencing cannot be made in cases where a sentence of death penalty, imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten (10) years has been imposed.

Traditionally, the determination of the punishment is the exclusive authority of the judge of the fact-finding court and it is not possible to file an appeal on the basis of the determination of the punishment which is not an error. However, it is a justice pursued by the law first, and under the legal system that does not generally state the grounds for the determination of the punishment, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is exceptionally allowed in the purport that an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is made by reducing significant individual differences in the determination of the punishment by the judge of the fact-finding court and resolving the imbalance of the punishment by generalizing the standards for the determination of the punishment by the final appeal, and the above provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be deemed to be prescribed in the same purport. Therefore, it is natural that ex post facto review of the sentencing in the final appeal shall not escape such a framework.

Article 51 of the Criminal Code provides that the following shall be taken into consideration in determining punishment; 1. The age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the offender; 3. The motive, means and consequence of the crime; 4. The circumstances after the crime are listed. This provision is the only provision and the only condition concerning sentencing.

Therefore, in examining the sentencing of the lower court, the above sentencing conditions will be followed within the functional limit of the court of final appeal in the preceding sentence.

2. The appellate brief argues that the judgment of the court below should be reversed for the authority and dignity of the judiciary through 80 pages of the 80th century.

However, according to the records, since the defendant et al.'s crime of the crime of this case, which was the fire prevention of the Busan American Cultural Institute, was closely planned and closely prepared and interviewed, the determination of the court below's punishment should be justified on the ground that the defendant et al.'s crime of this case was a crime that was committed by the young sexual intercourse in this country where the defendant graduated from or attended the university, and that the result was serious, and that the defendant et al. do not have any penance after the crime of this case. Therefore, the determination of the court below's punishment should be strictly imposed considering all circumstances that are conditions for sentencing such as the motive leading to the crime of this case, the means and consequence of the crime of this case, especially impacts on the state and society, etc.

① As to the process of the crime of this case, Defendant A denies his mother's crime, and Defendant E and F sent back to the outside of denying the fact that the crime of this case was committed, the Defendants were dead, and the fire prevention was closely planned over a period of about three months, and according to the plan, Defendant A prepared to lead the preparation of things to be used for the crime, such as making answers to the scene, repeating of towing practice, etc., and taking place in Busan City City as well as in this U.S. Cultural Institute, which has many employees, visitors, etc., to interview and interview the security guards by setting fire at the front of the security guards.

② The issue is: (a) the Defendants urged the Defendants, who are the believers of the Gindo, to be aware of the sentencing through the responsible answer to the peace, seeking to realize justice and peace as a non-competence; and (b) the Defendants, who were graduated from or attended the university, to the next age 20, to the next age 33; (c) the Defendants are the young scarbs of this country who reached the age 20; (d) as they were the believers of the Gindo; (e) pursuing justice and peace as a non-competuity; (e) pursuing justice and peace as a non-competuity; and (e) expressing freedom and democracy against the doctrine of justice and peace; and (e) emphasizing the violence that is against the freedom and democracy; and (e) there is no way to avoid such concealment; and (e) the Defendants cannot be understood that the rest of the Defendants cannot be understood as being sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexual.

According to the evidence of the court below, in addition to the defendant in this case, the defendant W was also employed by the non-indicted AJdong AK (each of the witnesses in the court of first instance), etc., and the line to reduce so as to be fladed. If the jury of the flag case was committed, the Busan American Cultural Institute would not remain. Thus, even if the jury of the flag case was committed, the defendant cannot be viewed as having been convicted of the necessity of fire prevention, the satellite or inevitability, and the preparation of the plan was carried out for a long time and closely, and the defendant was a knowledge that he received higher education. In addition, considering the above, the crime in this case is not a contingent crime due to the age of the flag, the level of knowledge is low, and the level of knowledge is not a contingent crime due to experience.

③ The author points out the inevitability of the fire prevention to the Busan American Cultural Institute and emphasizes the legitimacy and pureity of the motive of the fire prevention prior to the fire prevention.

However, the means, method, and consequence of the act cannot be justified by the motive, and the inevitable nature of the crime cannot be said to be the origin of urban laws and regulations. If the act of self-defense or emergency evacuation is an inevitable reason for the illegality of a crime, it is not only a strict requirement, but it is not a condition for the determination of punishment.

The issue is that the motive of the fire prevention of this case would not occur if there was no Gwangju case, and that the motive of the fire prevention of this case would lead to the Gwangju case, and the defendant et al. lack a correct understanding of the motive for the crime of this case. First of all, whether the military force input in Gwangju case or at the time when the defendant et al. was based on the operation direction of the U.S. Commander of the U.S. army is merely an exclusive group of the defendant et al. without objectivity. Thus, the means and method of crime and the consequence of the crime cannot be justified by motive, as well as the motive itself in this case where the objectivity and legitimacy cannot be recognized, the motive of the crime of this case cannot be easily justified.

④ The argument is that the Defendant et al.’s fire prevention itself had a significance on the fact that the Defendant et al. committed the fire prevention to Busan District Cultural Institute, so it was written with various features to reduce the damage, and that human life damage was not entirely intended. In light of the means and methods of the crime of this case duly confirmed by the lower court, the materials showing that the damage was likely to be caused by examining the methods and circumstances leading up to the crime of this case do not constitute a basis for recognizing this, and it is naturally predicted that the Defendant would cause human life damage if many people were to commit the fire to the existing building, and thus, it cannot be said that there is an influent perception as a matter of course. Therefore, in light of the trend that the fire prevention itself is expected to cause the death of human life, it cannot be accepted as it is merely an action against the Defendant et al.

⑤ The argument points out that CB made a statement to the effect that the U.S. government and the U.S. government were deceased BY (no mentioning female students, such as BZ, CA, etc.) that the fire prevention case in Korea and the name of the South Korean Council of Social Services and Social Services Council would reflect the cY’s cY sense that the Korean nationals were cY, and that the above BY’s family members were not able to have any more shots in the instant case on the case where the bY’s own consciousness was destroyed, should be considered in the determination of the punishment of this case.

However, since the crime of fire prevention is a crime of public danger that causes danger to the lives, bodies, and property of many and unspecified persons and harms the peace of the public, it is difficult to see the purport and significance of the above sub-City CB's speech or the end of the victim BY's bereaved family members, and it cannot be said that the legal interests infringed upon by the Defendants' crime was restored due to this crime. The seriousness of the result of the crime by the Defendant et al. cannot be said to be the reason to consider the determination of the punishment of the Defendant et al. in light of the fact that the effect of the crime of fire is related to the national security of the nation, such as counter-frus as the victim and injured, etc. and the damaged property damage, other than the damaged property damage caused by the fire, as well as the anti-frut relief, etc. spreaded by the victim et al., together with the spread of the disaster caused by the fire.

6. The Defendant, etc. shall not be able to repent of the instant crime committed in the city.

On the other hand, the defendant et al., pointing out the arguments that "it is impossible for the first time to bring any question to the international community because the military first scambling the strong state's unfair interference and crossing with our nation for the first time in the name of the nation", and that "any person can not bring any question to the necessity and necessity of the fire prevention of the Busan District Cultural Institute of Busan, the necessity and necessity of the fire prevention, and its inevitable nature, and sell the first instance court and the lower court to the defendant et al., because the defendant et al. do not have any way to say that they will live in the mind of committing the crime of this case."

A self-denunciation is not a legally necessary reason for mitigation of punishment. In addition, the first reason is that a criminal commits a crime, and therefore, a self-denunciation who does not repent of the crime can not be said to be a true self-denunciation which serves as a legal reason for mitigation of punishment even if he/she is a self-denunciation.

The issue is that the commitment of the government-ranking authority that the defendant W and Dong C should be observed by the judgment for the authority and dignity of the judiciary, on the grounds of the circumstances in which the defendant W and Dong C voluntarily surrenders, but even if such fact was found, it is obvious that it is outside the power of the independent judiciary, and there is no room for discussion.

7) Finally, the author argues that the death penalty, which is controversial, must be damaged for any reason. From a humanitarian or religious point of view, there is no theory that the death penalty should be damaged. On the other hand, there is no other remaining life infringed upon by a crime, nor can it understand the retention of life style for the sake of public peace and order in society. This can be understood as a national class of crime appearing in the positive law of the country. This is because the crime of fire prevention is a crime of causing danger to lives, bodies, and property of many and unspecified persons and the crime of public danger harming public peace and peace, the punishment is particularly heavy and historically imposed on each country, and there is no reason that the death penalty should be damaged by deeming it as a crime of fire punishment under Article 164 of the Criminal Act as a crime of life penalty under Article 164 of the Criminal Act. On the other hand, the cargo of this case cannot be seen as a crime of attack and violence at the same time, as it is too aggressive and aggressive at the same time.

8. Defendant J, Q, Dong R and Dong S, and other grounds of appeal

1. The grounds of appeal by Defendant J describe ① the following as follows: (a) the religious person who is a religious person that beliefs the risk of human public power ② The voice of Dogn National Government, ④ all of Dogn National Assembly members, and the morality should be sought; (b) It is difficult to ascertain the purport of his assertion as the grounds of appeal; and (c) the remaining grounds of appeal are determined en bloc as to whether the defendant's so-called illegality is inappropriate in the above Article 6, and the purport of the remaining grounds of appeal can be summarized as follows: (a) from a religious standpoint, it is necessary not only to see the inconsistency and corruption of the real society, but also to exclude the voice of the persons who are suffering from recovery and suffering from pain in the public power, as well as to the social order, and (d) it is not a legitimate ground of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the appeal may not be discussed.

2. The appeal of Defendant Q by Defendant Q is in accordance with the direction of the president, such as building management, remuneration and cleaning, etc. The defendant's service in the education center in the Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu. Thus, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant at the time of the original trial if the evidence of the court below was collected in accordance with the records, and it is sufficient to find the criminal facts of the defendant at the time of the original trial, and it is clear that a simple mistake of facts cannot be made in the legitimate grounds for appeal, since the grounds for appeal is without merit, since the defendant merely provided accommodation to the ordinary defendant according to the direction of the president, and it is clear that the defendant's service was not made a person related to the Gwangju situation or the Busan American Cultural Institute Fire-Fighting case.

3. Defendant R transferred to his bereaved family members of the court of first instance and second instance to the effect that Defendant R, etc. related to the Busan American Cultural Institute Fire Prevention Case, who lost a scam as a fire prevention incident, brought about Nonindicted Party BY from a deep sense and sacrifice that they did not mean. Although Defendant R understood Defendant’s clear mind and behavior of Defendant et al. and used them, Defendant R’s family members and his family members do not know of the victim’s direct mind and behavior, it is sufficient that Defendant R Y’s family members of the above BY’s family members are fluencing with the victim’s scam, and they are fluencing with their harsh and unfair crimes and punishment covered by the Defendant and the second instance judgment, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, this is without merit.

4. The gist of the grounds of appeal by Defendant S is that the defendant denies the criminal facts of the defendant at the time of the original trial, or that the facts charged against the defendant was tried by the court of the first instance of this case (in the appellate brief, there was no examination of the facts charged in the original trial, and in the appellate brief, the defendant alleged that he did not have any difference in the facts that the defendant met with the defendant A during the appellate brief of February 1982, but considering that the defendant A was forced to meet with his female in Busan and went back to Busan, it seems that the defendant was to go to the second Busan on February 17, 1982 and returned to the 1st and the original state, and thus, the defendant was in the order of the last three months would be considered to be a mistake in the middle of February.

In the case of this case where the court of first instance (No. 2, 951, 961, 961, No. 2, 951, and 961, which was the first instance trial of the criminal trial of the first instance court), and the defendant cannot make a new argument, and the decision of suspension of execution for a period of one year and two years of suspension of qualification cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Accordingly, the appeal cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, and there is no ground for appeal.

the terms of the contract

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant et al. by the defendant et al. is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, on the basis of Article 57 of the Criminal Act, that 25 days out of the number of days of confinement and confinement after the appeal by the defendant C, Dong D, Dong E, Dong F, Dong G, Dong H, Dong I, DongJ, Dong K, Dong L, etc. shall be included in the imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant et al.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)