Whether the crime of aiding and abetting a secret agent under Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be mitigated in accordance with Article 32 (2) of the Criminal Act.

The crime of aiding and abetting a secret agent under Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act is equivalent to the espionage crime which is the principal offender, and therefore does not correspond to the accessories specified in the general provisions of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the punishment shall not be mitigated in general provisions.

Articles 98 and 32 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292Do195 delivered on June 30, 1959 (Supreme Court Decision 5688 delivered on June 12, 1959, Supreme Court Decision 4292Do870 delivered on April 5, 1960, Supreme Court Decision 4292Do870 delivered on June 5, 1960

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 75Gohap36 delivered on January 1, 200

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years and suspension of qualifications for ten years, and by imprisonment for three years and six months and suspension of qualifications for three years and six months, respectively.

The seized certificate of the Republic of Korea (certificate 1), passport of the Republic of Korea (certificate 2), five copies of the passport of the Bank of Korea (certificate 6), 10,000 of the Bank of Korea (certificate 6), 29,000 of the Japanese bank, 10,000 of the Japanese bank, 10,000 of the Japanese bank, 1,000 of the Japanese bank, 9, 1,000 of the Japanese bank, 1,00 of the

The first point of the appeal by the defendant, etc. is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts and that the sentencing of the court below is significant, even though it is not so domestic, the court below's first point of the appeal is that the defendant's crime was committed in the same way as that of the defendant living in Japan, and that the court below's first point of the appeal was erroneous in applying the law to espionage aiding and abetting the defendant, etc. in light of the nature of the principal offense, and since the sentencing of the court below is so unfair because the court below's first point of the appeal is in light of the nature of the crime committed by the defendant, etc., first of all, there is no reason to discuss that the court below's error of mistake of facts was erroneous in the judgment of the court below, and there is no reason to see that the defendant's crime was committed in the first place without the intention of the non-indicted living in Japan, and that the defendant's relationship with the mother and his family members, etc. living in Japan and there is no reason to see that the defendant's character and character of the defendant.

Then, according to the records of the case of the defendant 2's wrong application of the law, the court below's decision on the crime of aiding and abetting the defendant 2's counter-espionage pursuant to Article 32 (2) of the Criminal Act. Since the crime of aiding and abetting the counter-espionage under Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act is not a paper offender under the general provisions of the Criminal Act, but a principal offender equivalent to the crime of aiding and abetting the counter-espionage, the crime of aiding and abetting the counter-espionage cannot be mitigated under the general provisions, even though the court below's final mitigation was not erroneous.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as to Defendant 1's appeal against unfair sentencing, and as to Defendant 2, it is not necessary to determine the other grounds for appeal, and it is so decided as follows.

Criminal facts and evidence admitted by a member are the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

Article 2 of the National Security Act, Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 98 (4) and (3) of the same Act, Article 6 (1) of the same Act, Article 6 (4) of the same Act, and Article 6 (4) 1 of the same Act, Article 4 (1) of the same Act, and Article 6 (3) of the same Act, and Article 6 (1) of the same Act, Article 4 of the same Act, and Article 4 (1) of the same Act, Article 5 (1) of the same Act, and Article 6 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 2 of the same Act, Article 5 (1) of the same Act, and Article 6 of the same Act, Article 5 of the same Act, Article 1 of the same Act, Article 6 of the same Act, provides 3-year imprisonment with labor and 5-year imprisonment with labor, 5-year imprisonment with labor, 5-year imprisonment with labor, 5-year imprisonment with labor, and 5-year imprisonment with labor, respectively, and 2-year imprisonment with labor.

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

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Justice) Yang Young-tae Kim