Whether a person committing a crime, such as meeting with a return agent from North Korea leader and encouraging or encouraging his or her activities for publicity of North Korea, may be deemed to have committed a separate crime of non-disclosure, in addition to each crime of meeting, praise, rubber, etc.

No one shall be deemed to have committed any crime, other than those of assembly, praise, rubber, etc., against those who meet with a disguised espionage, and commit any of the crimes, such as encouraging or encouraging his or her activities to promote North Korea’s abduction, by committing a false crime.

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Park Yong-soo (Pe.)

Gwangju High Court Decision 74No273 delivered on December 3, 1974

Of the original judgment, the part dismissing Defendant 2’s appeal is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

55 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence against Defendant 1.

The part of Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal that the application of Article 2 of the Act was erroneous is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 1’s appeal against this case by sufficiently recognizing the facts charged against this case. It is clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the law as to the following facts: (a) Defendant 1, who was aware that Defendant 1 was a spambling spambling which was returned to North Korea, was an anti-government organization with the knowledge that he was a spambling spam; (b) Defendant 1’s speech was spambling at each meeting; and (c) Defendant 1’s objection to anti-government organization, such as gathering of facts, spambling, and rubber spambombling, and so on, Defendant 1 did not inform this case to the investigative information organization, and thus, Defendant 1’s prosecution cannot be applied to this case’s punishment, regardless of the fact that spambling and rubber spamboming that it did not affect the judgment of the court below.

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined together.

In light of the records, even if Defendant 1 reviewed the records, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of violation of the principle against the prohibition against double Jeopardy by receiving a judgment of not guilty in this case from this case as the contents of prosecution overlapped with the case which became final and conclusive after being rendered a verdict of not guilty. In light of the records, the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court below maintained, can be recognized by comparing the records. Thus, there is no reason to deny the above criminal facts and to discuss that there was a mistake of facts in the original judgment or a mistake of law application on the premise that there was an error of law application on the premise that the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court below maintained, was erroneous, even if considering all the conditions of sentencing specified in the records, and there is no reason to view that the determination of the sentence against the

Therefore, the part of Defendant 2’s dismissal of Defendant 2’s appeal among the original judgment by applying Articles 391 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be reversed and remanded, and Defendant 1’s appeal shall be dismissed and 55 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence against Defendant 2 pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)