A. The meaning of "association", "group" and "organization" under Article 3 of the National Security Act

B. Whether there exists a separate purpose of national defense, such as a disturbance, as to the establishment of a new governing body by forming a group with the aim of government uniform by the co-divists and their co-divists

(c) The case holding that a meeting in the form of fraternity constitutes an anti-government organization; and

A. Of the code of conduct that represents the government of Article 3 of the National Security Act or constitutes a partnership or a group with the intent to disrupt the nation, the term “convenor” is a combination of two or more specific persons with the common purpose who are bound to continue to exist voluntarily (a combination with intent to continue to exist in fact without the need to maintain existence in fact). The term “group” is a combination of several and more specific persons with the common purpose, such as the above association, but the group of the partnership is a group with the common purpose at a temporary point, but the group of the partnership is different in a temporary point, and the term “convenation” is established between two or more persons who intend to establish a partnership or group, and it includes a simple arrangement of mental and material guidance of the formation from the outside with their intent to form a partnership or group.

B. The expression of the government, which is a subjective element for the crime of forming an anti-government organization under Article 3 of the National Security Act, and the expression of the state is required to form a group for the happiness of the government, and to specifically seek the formation of a new government after the uniform of the government. However, if an anti-governmentist and his assistant form a association or group for the happiness of the government in light of the empirical rule or private doctrine, it should be deemed that the government has provided a specific form such as North leader or a form of government that can easily promote so-called joint venture with North leader after the uniform of the government, and therefore, it is not necessary to see the new government or follow the purpose of national defense with respect to the establishment of a new government organization after the uniform of the Government.

C. The Defendants agreed to make a meeting in the form of a fraternity at the place in which the government head of the group and opinions are exchanged with respect to the Doldo, and the Defendants formed the "Doldo" in this case. From the perspective of the formation of the "Doldo", the Defendants are recognized to have determined the purpose of the government to return to the government and the method of its practice and the details of the division of duties, and have decided to act in accordance with the determination of the purpose and the contents of the division of duties, and have formed a disguised organization in the form of a disguised organization for the purpose of national change. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no explicit discussion as to its purpose and duties at the time of formation of the "Doldo".

Article 3 of the National Security Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do152 Decided April 22, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 82Do1219 Decided July 13, 1982

Defendant 1 and five others

Prosecutor (Defendants 1 to 6) and Defendants 1 to 4)

Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Park Jong-chul, Yang-do

Seoul High Court Decision 82No910 delivered on June 19, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, with respect to the establishment of an anti-government organization among the facts charged in this case against the defendants, the court below denied the purpose of the "Spool" in the court of first instance as to the establishment of the anti-government organization, the leading system, and other organizational relations. Ultimately, even if the defendants make statements at the prosecutor's office, the above "Spool" did not explicitly discuss the purpose or position and duties at the time of formation of the "Spool", and it seems that the defendants agreed explicitly from the past. However, with respect to the contents agreed implicitly, it is hard to conclude that the defendant's statement was made with the aim of establishing an anti-government organization, and it is hard to conclude that all of the defendants' statements were made by the court below as evidence of this case's violation of the National Security Act with the aim of establishing an anti-government organization, and it is hard to conclude that the above "Spool" was the same with the content as the indictment, and that the defendant's statement at the second instance court's prosecutor's office's meeting constitutes an anti-government act.

However, from among the rules of conduct that represents the government of Article 3 of the National Security Act or form a partnership or group for the purpose of disturbing the nation, first, the term "partnership" means a continuous association with a common purpose. (1) It requires two or more members as a partnership; (2) the partnership requires a common purpose; and (3) the partnership is a partnership for other purposes, not the sole purpose of the partnership; and (4) the partnership shall be a voluntary partnership for the other purposes; and (4) the partnership shall continue to exist without any actual existence. However, as long as the partnership meeting meeting above four requirements is formed under the intention of continuing it, there is no fact that the partnership is a partnership, or there is no representative, nor does it affect the establishment of the partnership; and (3) the partnership does not affect the formation of the partnership, and as long as it is for other purposes, it does not require a common purpose, and (4) the partnership shall not be established in the name of the partnership or association, 62) it does not interfere with the form of the partnership or association (see 62).

Second, a group (such as assembly and military) is a combination of many and a specified number of people with a common purpose, such as the foregoing association, but the group for the continued aggregate is different from a temporary point of view, and the concept of the group is formed between two or more persons who intend to create a association or group, and therefore, it is established when the intention to create it is agreed upon. Therefore, it is included in the organization of such association or organization that simply takes charge of mental and material guidance of its formation from the outside with the intention to join the association or group.

그러나 국가보안법 제3조 의 반국가단체구성죄의 구성요건을 충족하기 위하여서는 위 설시한 결사나 집단을 구성하는 외에 정부를 참칭하거나 국가를 변란할 목적 즉, 주관적 요건이 필요한 것임은 재언의 여지가 없는 것이다. 위의 정부를 참칭하거나 국가를 변란할 목적은 결국 정부를 전복시키려는 목적이라 할 것이며, 따라서 위 같은법 제3조 의 정부를 참칭하고 국가를 변란한다는 것은 정부를 전복하기 위하여 결사나 집단을 구성하는 것으로 정부 전복을 기도하고 정부전복 후의 새로운 정부의 수립을 구체적으로 구상함을 요하나 공산주의자 및 그 동조자들이 정부를 전복하기 위하여 결사나 집단을 구성하였다면 경험칙상 또는 사리상 당연히 정부전복 후에는 구체적으로 북괴와 같은 형태 또는 북괴와 소위 합작을 쉽사리 추진할 수 있는 형태의 정부를 구상하였을 것이라고 보아야 할 것이므로 이에 대하여는 대한민국정부전복 후의 새로운 통치기구를 수립하는 점에 관하여는 새삼스럽게 정부를 참칭하거나 국가변란의 목적을 따질 필요가 없다고 할 것이다. ( 당원 1982.7.13. 선고 82도1219 판결 참조) 일건기록을 증거와 대조하여 검토하여 보면 원심판결은 이 사건 공소사실중 피고인 1은, 고등학교 2학년때 역사담당교사이던 피고인은 2, 그 당시 “씨알의 소리” 금산보급소장이던 피고인 3 등과 접촉을 계속하여 오면서 피고인 2로부터는 그의 민족주의 사상에 감화를 받고, 피고인 3으로부터는 정치, 사회비판 의식을 고취받는 한편 자신의 불우한 처지를 현실사회에 조명하여 우리 사회의 어두운 면만을 지나치게 의식한 나머지 우리 사회를 부익부 빈익빈 사회로 규정한 다음, 사유재산을 폐지하고 공동생산, 공동분배하는 공산주의 사회를 동경하여 현실부정 일변도로 나가던중 1979.10.26 사태, 1980.5. 광주사태 등에 관한 갖가지 유언비어에 현혹되여 급기야는 일제식민통치, 조국분단의 책임이 미국에 있고, 광복후 지금까지의 역대정권 특히 현정권은 미국의 조종과 영향하에 민족통일을 외면하고 매판자본과 결탁하여 민중을 수탈 억압하는 반민족적 매판 군사파쇼정권으로 규정하는 반면, 북괴 수괴는 항일 독립투쟁의 영웅이며 외세를 배격 민족자주통일을 위하여 노력하는 지도자로 규정하고, 동 북괴의 소위 고려연방제 주장에 따라 민중이 역사의 주최가 되는 통일민족국가를 하루 빨리 수립하여야 하는데 그러기 위해서는 노동자 농민과 학생등 민중을 반정부, 반외세방향으로 앞장서 투쟁할 수 있도록 의식화하여 민중봉기를 유도 폭력혁명으로 현정권을 전복하고 미국등 외세를 축출하여야 한다는 망상에 사로잡혀 있는 자이고, 피고인 2, 3, 4, 5, 6도 모두 피고인 1의 생각과 같은 망상에 사로잡혀 있는 자들임을 판시하므로서 피고인들이 전원 공산주의 신봉자 내지 용공동조자임과 편집성향의 공산주의 확신범임을 인정하였으며, 한편 피고인들은 1980.11. 경부터 1981.5.17 이 사건 “아람회”결성시까지 원심이 인정한 범죄사실과 같이 수시로 상호접촉을 계속하고, 위 상호접촉은 의식적, 의도적인 회합성질을 띈 것이며 그것도 비밀로 행위한 것임이 분명하니 범죄일시가 구체적으로 특정된 사실들을 살펴보면 개략 토요일 오후에서 일요일에 긍한 행위였음에 비추어 더욱 비밀유지에 급급하였음을 규지하기에 어렵지 않다. 또한 피고인들의 범행내용이 민중봉기를 유도하여 폭력으로 현정권을 타도하고 민중정부를 수립하여야 한다고 언동하고, 북괴 수괴가 위대한 항일투사이고 그의 고려연방제가 합리적이라면서 동 북괴 수괴를 위한 건배까지 하고, 북괴 국가와 가요를 가창(합창)하고, 미군축출등 반미언동을 하였다는 등등으로서 그 범행의 반복누행성, 비밀성, 광역성, 다양성 및 심도성을 감안하면 원심이 인정한 피고인들의 범죄사실 한도안에서 고찰하더라도 피고인들에 대한민국 현정부를 전복시키려는 의도와 목적이 뚜렷하게 현출된 것을 인정하기에 족하다 할 수 있으며, 그 위험성도 결코 적다 할 수 없다.

Meanwhile, according to Defendant 2, 5, and 6’s protocol prepared by the public prosecutor or a written statement prepared by Defendant 3 at the time of interrogation of anti-government organizations (2094), Defendant 1, 2, and 3, etc., who collected at the time of large exhibition at around 20:0 on the date, constitute an annual meeting of the Office of Education, which included motives and students, and prepared a framework for the organization of the public prosecutor’s office, which included the contents of the facts charged, with the intention of forming a false and reliable organization of the Republic of Korea. Defendant 2, who provided training for human resources, included the teachers and students, prepared for the formation of an anti-government organization with the intention of forming an anti-government organization or for the purpose of forming an anti-government organization. Defendant 3 agreed to conduct an anti-government organization with the view of forming an anti-government organization and forming an anti-government organization, and concluded that there is no way to conclude that the organization was non-government-government organizations as well as its present purpose and form of evidence.

2. The grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the defense counsel by Defendant 1 and the defense counsel by Defendant 3 are also examined.

In light of the records, the court below's decision is justified in finding the defendants guilty of the remaining facts charged except the above 1 among the facts charged in this case against the same defendants, and it cannot be said that there is any violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore all of the arguments are groundless.

3. The above facts of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 guilty of the above facts charged by the prosecutor after being acquitted of the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As seen above, the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion is reversed on the ground that the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed entirely. Thus, the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court that is the court below, and it is so decided as per

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)