(a) Purport that members of an anti-government organization or an industrial cooperative organization overseas as provided in Article 5 of the Anti-Public Law, or persons who have contacted with such organization or organization, communications or other persons;

B. Whether a foreigner can punish a violation of antipublic law committed in a foreign country

A. The members of anti-public law in Article 5 of anti-public law or members of an anti-public organization or a foreign country-affiliated organization or persons who communicate with them or other persons who contact with them are limited to the area in which the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea is practically affected, and as long as Korea is a national, those who conduct such act in a third country.

B. A foreigner enters Japan as an area under the control of an anti-government organization, and a member of an anti-government organization, communication, or other communication with a member of an anti-government organization or an anti-government organization in Japan or in other third countries does not constitute a foreigner's overseas crime and there is no ground for punishment by applying

Isra haloga et al. 7 others

Prosecutor (Defendant 1)

Attorney Tae-man (Law No. 1) Oral System (Law No. 6) (7) (8) (Law No. 5040, Dec. 2, 2001) (Law No. 1060, Mar. 21, 201)

Seoul High Court Decision 75No1511 delivered on February 6, 1976

All of the Prosecutor’s appeals and Defendants’ appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be calculated by adding 80 days to the respective original sentence against the defendant 1, 2, and 3.

With respect to Defendant 4, the number of days of detention days after the appeal, in which the judgment of the first instance is included in the term of the principal sentence after the final appeal, and the remaining days of detention before the sentence of the original judgment, shall be included in the term of the principal sentence.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

However, barring any special circumstance, a person who escaped from an area under the control of an anti-government organization as provided in Article 6 of the Anti-public Law refers to not only a person who enters the area under the control of an anti-government organization directly from the area in which the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea is actually exercised, but also a person who enters a third country through or resides in a third country as well as a person who enters an area under the control of an anti-government organization (Supreme Court Decision 67Do1140 delivered on November 28, 1967). It is justified in the judgment of the court below that there is no ground to believe that the defendant constitutes a violation of the Constitution and the law of anti-government organization or a person who communicates with a member of an anti-government organization overseas or a person who is under the control of an anti-government organization or who is under the control of an anti-government organization, but also a person who commits such act in a third country as well as a member of the Republic of Korea.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 7 are also examined by Defendant Lee haloga's counsel.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in recognizing the facts charged No. 2, it is clear that the defendant in theory and the fact of sending correspondence in Japan from the area under the control of an anti-government organization was the fact that the defendant was under the command of an anti-government organization and was locked for the purpose of carrying out its purpose, and it does not appear to be guilty on the basis of the theory of the lawsuit. It does not appear that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged No. 2. It does not appear that the court below did not have a clear explanation in the judgment, the judgment was vague, the interpretation of law was erroneous, or the violation of the principle of no punishment without the law. The part of the indictment on the facts charged which the court below found the defendant not guilty is nothing more than constitutes the contents of the facts charged, and it does not violate the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act on the presentation of reasons. In full view of the records of the first instance judgment admitted by the court below, it cannot be recognized that the defendant was guilty of the facts that he attempted to commit a crime and obtained an anti-government of punishment and the anti-government organization.

Defendant 1 through 7’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal and Defendant 2 through 6’s grounds of appeal are examined together.

In light of the record and comprehensive review of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, each crime committed by the Defendants can be recognized. The argument that Co-Defendant 1 was guilty of the above crime on the ground that he was completely unaware of the fact that he was a counter-espionage who was engaged in activities under the order of North Korea haloga, is without merit, and that there was a mistake of facts in the original judgment by denying the above crime, and that there was a mistake of facts in the original judgment, in this case where the court of first instance rendered a decision of less than 10 years by denying the above crime, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal and each of the defendants' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act to the inclusion of each of the detention days after the appeal against the defendant 1, 4, 2, and 3.

Justices Lee Il-hee (Presiding Justice)