Whether or not to confiscate stocks acquired from the U.S. dollars supplied by the North Korean public organization;

In the issuance of new shares, 155 share certificates of a company acquired as a result of investment in the form of payment for the stock price at the time of issuing new shares with 400,000 money supplied by the North Korean public organization, are not owned by a person other than the criminal, and therefore, it is reasonable to confiscate it from the criminal under Article 48 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act.

Article 48 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (73 Gohap230)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

Goods recorded in the attached list seized shall be forfeited from the accused.

The first ground for appeal of the defendant's defense counsel is that the defendant was guilty of all the facts of the crime charged in this case without any awareness of the purpose of the defendant's appeal for North Korea's public policy or public policy. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts of the crime charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second ground for appeal of the above attorney's defense counsel is that the amount of the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, and the main point of the prosecutor's appeal is that the decision of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

First of all, when comprehensively reviewing the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts by the defense counsel in light of the records and evidence duly admitted by the court below (in particular, the fact that the defendant has led to the whole confession of the crime in the court below), it can be sufficiently recognized that each of the principal facts of the defendant's judgment by the court below, and the records of the case are not erroneous as pointed out in the arguments. Furthermore, even if the records of the case are examined, it is not erroneous as pointed out ex officio in the process of fact finding by the court below, and it is not reasonable to reverse the judgment of the court below that the defendant's decision does not affect the judgment of the court below as to the above violation of Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act, since the defendant's investment in the form of a joint venture as a means of pretending legal activities for the achievement of this case's espionage purpose and 300,000 U.S. dollars and 100,000 U.S. dollars of the defendant's own fund at the time of issuance of new stocks by the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Articles 2 and 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The gist of the criminal facts and evidence of the defendant admitted as a member of the party is that the defendant made a statement in this case, consistent with the facts of the judgment as to the circumstances in which the defendant acquired 15 copies of the above non-indicted 1 corporation in this court by the witness non-indicted 2 as the evidence, and except where the defendant added a statement in this court's contents consistent with the facts of the judgment, etc., the defendant made a statement in each of the cases of the judgment below, and therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The escape under Paragraph (1) of Article 6 in the judgment of the defendant is based on the following facts: Article 6 Paragraph (1) Item (2) of the Anti-Public Law; Article 3 Paragraph (1) Item (2) of the same Act; Article 3 Paragraph (3) of the same Act; Article 3 Paragraph (4) of the same Act; Article 3 Paragraph (4) (4) and Paragraph (2) of the same Act provides that a secret agent under Article 98 Paragraph (7) of the Criminal Act comes under Article 98 Paragraph (1) Item ; Article 98 Paragraph (5) of the same Act; Article 6 Paragraph (4) and Paragraph (3) of the Anti-Public Law; Article 6 Paragraph (1) of the same Act provides that a secret agent shall be punished under Article 98 Paragraph (5) of the same Act; Article 6 Paragraph (6) and Paragraph (7) of the same Act takes into consideration the motive of the defendant's principal act; Article 6 Paragraph (1) of the same Act; Article 5 (6) (7) of the same Act provides that the defendant shall be punished under Article 38 Paragraph (1) of the same Act.

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

[Attachment]

Judge Regular (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-jin-gu