(a) Military secrecy of matters included in the facts known in the Republic of Korea, and of espionage;

B. Whether the illegality of a church in a case where the contents of an opinion given to believers violates the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9

A. In the crime of espionage under the Criminal Act, even if military secrets belong to the facts of public notice in Korea, matters not included in the facts of public notice in the North leader control area include all those which belong to military interests.

(b) If the contents of the church expressing believers to believers are acts prohibited under the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 by deviating from the legitimate scope of ordinary religious activities, the crime cannot be exempted, and it cannot be viewed as an act by the religious activity of the teaching staff as an act by the religious activity of the teaching staff, which constitutes a ground for excluding illegality.

Articles 98 and 20 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants and Prosecutor ( Defendants 3 and 4)

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court of the first instance (75 high Gohap1047)

The part concerning Defendant 2, 3, and 4 in the original judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years and suspension of qualifications for ten years, by imprisonment for five years and suspension of qualifications for three years, by suspension of qualifications for five years, and by imprisonment for two years and suspension of qualifications for two years, respectively.

One hundred and seventy-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above imprisonment for the above Defendants.

The seized one radio (No. 12), color 1 set (Evidence No. 13), 1 set (Evidence No. 14), 1 set (Evidence No. 14), 1 set (Evidence No. 15), 2 set-up (Evidence No. 16,17), 1 set-up (Evidence No. 18), 1 set-up (Evidence No. 19), 1 set-up (Evidence No. 21 through 25) shall be confiscated from Defendant 2; 5 set-up (Evidence No. 21 through 25) shall be confiscated from Defendant 3; 1 set-up, 1 set-up (Evidence No. 26), 1 set-up, 1 set-up, 1 set-up (Evidence No. 27), and 1 set (Evidence No. 28) shall be confiscated from Defendant 4.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

1. First of all, the grounds of appeal by Defendants 2, 3, and 4, except the grounds of unfair sentencing, are examined.

The summary of the reasons for this decision by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel is as follows: First, even if the facts discovered at the original time were recognized, all the facts discovered by Defendant 2 were disclosed, it was not confidential to the extent to harm the national interest, and it was not particularly collected, and thus, it was affected by the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of a espionage crime and misunderstanding facts; second, since the defendant did not have the awareness that 1 was an overseas co-defendant, it cannot be said that 10 through 19, 21, 23, or 26 at the original time meets the constituent elements of the antipublic law. Further, even if the contents of conversation with Defendant 1 and the use of money and valuables received at the original time were considerably different from that of the original judgment, the court below found Defendant 4 and his defense counsel guilty of violating the law of misunderstanding or misunderstanding the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment; second, although there was no evidence that the court below erred by misunderstanding or misunderstanding the contents of the judgment by the defendant 4 and 3, the defendant's defense counsel's ground for appeal.

Therefore, Defendant 2's first ground for appeal is examined as to the first point of appeal, and as to the crime of espionage under the Criminal Code, even if the military secret belongs to the publicly known facts in Korea, it includes all matters that are not included in the publicly known facts in the North leader control area, and according to the original judgment in this case, according to the original judgment in this case, it is sufficient to recognize the above facts in full view of the relevant evidence investigated and adopted by the court below, that the defendant discovered matters concerning the flight training in the U.S. Air Force Base in the U.S. located in the military, such as the facts stated in 20,22 at the time of original judgment, and discovered and collected information about the number of the city product park in the Guro Industrial Complex located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, under the order of co-defendant 1, who is a member of the anti-government organization, and discovered and collected information about wages, etc., and it cannot be said that the court below's ruling which recognized the establishment of the crime of espionage in

The following reasons are the second reasons and the first reasons for appeal of Defendants 3 and 4, and the examination of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below in light of the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant 2, 3, and 4 have consented to the examination of suspect interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the public prosecutor's protocol which the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the defendant as to the judgment of the court below as defendant 4. The examination of the case record reveals that the defendant consented to the admission of the

Finally, in the second ground of appeal by Defendant 3, in Sub-Section 4, Defendant 3's explanation of the same contents as Defendant 3's statement in the second ground of appeal is considered to deviate from the legitimate scope of ordinary religious activities and goes beyond the limits of guaranteeing the freedom of religion. Thus, if so-called "prohibited acts stipulated by the Presidential Emergency Decree", it cannot be exempted from liability. Thus, it cannot be said that it constitutes a ground for excluding illegality as an act by job as a religious activity of the teaching staff. Accordingly, each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2, 3, and 4 cannot be accepted.

2. We examine the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the following accused and the prosecutor:

Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal and the gist of each of the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing between the Defendants 2 and 4 and the said Defendants and the defense counsel’s defense counsel’s attorney’s grounds for appeal are unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendant is too unreasonable. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 3 and 4 is that the sentence against the said Defendant, etc. (two persons) is too unreasonable. As such, considering the following circumstances, the court below’s sentencing against Defendant 1 is inappropriate: (a) the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment; (b) motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, etc., it appears that the court below’s sentencing against Defendant 1 is appropriate and too unreasonable; (c) however, the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 3 and 4 cannot be accepted, while the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 2, 3 and 4’s appeal is justified.

3. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part concerning Defendant 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment below is reversed, and the party members are to render a new judgment after pleading.

The criminal facts of the above defendant (three persons) recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding case of the judgment below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 5 (1) of the National Security Act provides 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 16, 21, 25, and 26 to Defendant 1 and 2 for the following crimes: Article 5-2 of the National Security Act provides 5-year imprisonment with labor; Article 8-2 of the National Security Act provides 5-year-end imprisonment with labor for each of the above crimes; Article 8-2 of the National Security Act provides 5-year-end imprisonment with labor for each of the above crimes; Article 6-year-end imprisonment with labor for each of the above crimes; Article 8-2 of the above crimes against Defendant 1; Article 8-2 of the above Act provides 5-year-end imprisonment with labor for each of the above crimes; Article 6-year-end imprisonment with labor for each of the above crimes; Article 8-2 of the above Act provides 5-year-end imprisonment with labor for each of the above crimes; Article 8-1 of the above Act provides 5-year-end imprisonment with labor for each of the above crimes;

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)