A. Whether the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act stipulate the principle of peaceful unification and limited inter-Korean exchange, or whether North Korea can be deemed an anti-government organization under the National Security Act by using the name of the North Korean government as the name of the North Korean authority (negative)

B. Whether the act of benefiting an anti-government organization under Article 7 (1) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991) requires the awareness of the intention of benefiting an anti-government organization, or the occurrence of the reason for benefiting an anti-government organization (negative)

C. Requirements for establishing criminal organizations

(d) The case holding that if the defendant organized the "Korea Labor-Related Institute with the purpose of organizing the same contents as the anti-U.S. dollars for the unification of North Korea's leader as the non-indicted, as a co-principal in violation of Article 7 (1) and (3) of the former National Security Act, he is held liable to the defendant as a co-principal in violation of Article 7 (1) and (3) of the former National Security Act, in case where the defendant

(e) The case where the establishment of an accomplice relation is recognized in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

A. In a clear situation where North Korea: (a) committed the Korean War by attempting to commit the Korean War; (b) continued to commit an act of attempting against the Republic of Korea even after the closure; and (c) did not reveal the intent of hostile unification in the Constitution and the Criminal Act; and (d) it does not seem to have completely renounced the basic system of the Republic of Korea with the Republic of Korea with a strong military force; and (c) it is a threat to our free democratic basic order, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act stipulate the principle of peaceful unification and limited inter-Korean exchange and cooperation; or (d) by using the name of the North Korean authority, North Korea is not an anti-government organization under the National Security Act, such as declaring the principle of peaceful unification and promoting a normal conference and promoting the simultaneous joining of the United Nations.

B. The phrase "an act of benefiting an anti-government organization" as provided in Article 7 (1) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191) means an act of which contents can objectively benefit an anti-government organization, and does not require that the act be objectively carried out to benefit an anti-government organization, and it does not require that the act be carried out to benefit an anti-government organization. However, it is sufficient if there is a doluence that the act may benefit an anti-government organization, or may benefit from it. The term "organization of an organization aimed at the act as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2)" provided in Article 7 (3) of the same Act refers to an act of which the member is aware that the act of which he wishes to act may benefit objectively from an anti-government organization, and in this case, it does not require that the member be carried out with an anti-government organization.

(c) an organization whose purpose is to commit a crime is a continuous combination created with the common purpose that many and specified persons commit a certain crime and is established by having the minimum common system leading the organization.

D. If the Defendant, like the Nonindicted Party, organized the “Korea Labor-Related Institute,” which is the director of the learning center for workers’ consciousness and unification with the purpose of organizing the same contents as the anti-U.S. promotional activities for the unification of South and North Korea, as the part of the Defendant’s activities for the unification of North Korea, and provided education to workers, the Defendant would be deemed to have formed the above organization with the system of continuous and common initiative to achieve the above purpose with the knowledge that such activities would result in the act of the Defendant’s act that would benefit the North Korean public organization, which is an anti-government organization. Moreover, even though the Defendant knew the specific contents of the Defendant’s lectures, the Defendant is responsible for the entire Defendant as a co-principal of the violation of Article 7(1) and (3) of the former National Security Act, as long as the contents of the lectures correspond to the original purpose of the organization.

E. The case holding that the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is not established on the ground that the defendant did not appear to have depart from the above conspiracy relationship, on the grounds that the defendant, like the non-indicted, was committed with respect to confinement of the victim, confinement of the victim, and assault at the time of assault, with the intent of each other.

A. Article 2(1) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991), Article 4 of the Constitution, Articles 1 and 3(b) of the Inter-Korea Exchange and Cooperation Act. D. Article 7(1) and (3) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991). Article 30(5) of the Criminal Act is Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

A.B. (D) Supreme Court Decision 90Do2607 delivered on February 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 107). (A) 90Do646 delivered on June 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1500), 90Do1518 delivered on September 14, 1990 (Gong1990, 2123), 90Do1451 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong190, 224). (b) Supreme Court Decision 90Do1161 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong190, 1832), 90Do1217 delivered on August 28, 199 (Gong190, 190, 197Do19781 delivered on September 19, 197).

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Shin Jae-in et al.

Busan High Court Decision 90No1126 delivered on December 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

60 days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are examined.

1. As to the fact that North Korea is an anti-government organization

In Article 2 of the National Security Act, the concept of anti-government organization is defined in Article 2 of the National Security Act. North Korea has committed a 6/25 war and committed an aggressive act against the Republic of Korea even after the 6/25 war, and even after the 6/25 war has continued to do so, and the Constitution and the Criminal Act reveal not only the intention of hostile unification but also the fact that it has given up completely the basic system of the Republic of Korea with the military power, and it is obvious that there is no clear doubt that it has given up completely the fundamental order of the free democracy of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act stipulate limited inter-Korean exchange and cooperation as part of the effort to declare and realize the principle of peaceful unification, or as part of the effort to realize it is defined by the North Korean government in the name of the North Korean government, to promote a normal conference and enter the UN simultaneous accession, and thus, North Korea cannot be seen as an anti-government organization

2. As to the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence, the lack of reasons, the violation of Article 7 (1) and (3) of the National Security Act, the inconsistent reasoning, and the misapprehension of the legal principle

Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act provides that "the acts of benefiting workers of anti-government organizations" shall be objectively able to benefit from anti-government organizations. It does not demand that workers of the Republic of Korea be able to benefit from anti-government organizations. However, it is sufficient that such acts may benefit from anti-government organizations." Article 7 (3) of the same Act provides that "the organizations with the aim of conducting acts of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) shall be organized by the members of the Korean Labor Union with the aim of forming a new anti-government organizations with the aim of forming an anti-government organization." It is not necessary to establish an anti-government organization with the aim of forming a new anti-government organization with the aim of forming a new anti-government organization with the aim of forming a new anti-government organization with the aim of forming a new anti-government organization with the aim of forming a new anti-government organization with the aim of promoting labor relations among non-government workers of the Republic of Korea. It is also established by the court below.

Therefore, as the defendant at high knowledge level with higher education, it cannot be said that he had known that he had known the fact that he continues to engage in the activities while falsely publicizing the Korean politics, economy, and social system as part of the propaganda activities for the unification of the Republic of Korea's inter-Korean public relations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant had sufficiently known that the so-called "Korea public relations organization" in its ruling is in concert with the above anti-Korean public relations activities of the North Korean public relations organization, and that the organization purpose and its contents of the "Korea Labor Relations Institute" in the original judgment are consistent with the purpose of the society, and that the defendant applied the above anti-public relations with the North Korean public relations organization as part of the propaganda activities for the unification of the North Korea, and therefore, the defendant did not know that the above activities of the North Korean public relations organization constituted an anti-government organization, which is an anti-government organization, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as an anti-government organization's objective of the above public relations organization.

3. As to the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the misapprehension of the legal principle concerning joint principal offenders

Examining the evidence of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below according to the records, in light of the circumstance that the defendant was moving the victim's Cheongdo farm and detained the victim as the victim's Cheongdo farm, and the defendant committed an assault to the victim as the non-indicted 3 and 4, and the defendant did not have any objection to the assault at the time, and the defendant did not have any objection to the assault and detained the victim as the non-indicted 1, and there was a conspiracy between the defendant and the non-indicted 3 and 4 with respect to the confinement of the victim at the time of the assault and the confinement of the victim's Madol and the assault, and there was no then a conspiracy between the defendant and the non-indicted 1. In addition, it is not recognized that the assault and the injury was committed under the victim's consent in light of the circumstances, means and methods, and results of the act of the use of the crime of this case. Thus, it is acceptable to recognize the measures that the court below recognized the establishment of each crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as stated in its reasoning.

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed and the sixty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)