Defendant 1 and seven others

Both parties

Cho Jae-hwan, Cho Jin-hun, and Maternist (Public Trial)

Law Firm Han-han et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da1162, 2017 Gohap1204 (Consolidated), 2017 Gohap1255 (Consolidated) Decided May 23, 2018

[Defendant 1 (Defendant 3)]

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the Defendant is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

[Defendant 2 (Defendant 4)]

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the Defendant is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment below is dismissed.

[Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)]

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, each of the charges of violating the National Intelligence Service Act shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment below is dismissed.

[Defendant 4 (Defendant 1)]

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

[Defendant 5]

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the Defendant is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

[Defendant 6]

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the Defendant is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

[Defendant 7]

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the Defendant is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

[Defendant 8]

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the Defendant is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment below is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1);

A. Defendants

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The argument on the premise facts admitted by the court below

(1) The assertion that he did not recognize the substance of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter “National Intelligence Service”)’s case (Defendants)

Defendant 7 merely received a reply from a practical person to the effect that he/she respect the judicial decision because the case is currently being investigated in the process of preparing for the personnel hearing of the president of the NIS on March 2013, and that Nonindicted 14, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 did not report on the specific contents or substance of the instant case.

나머지 피고인들은 국정원 심리전단의 ◆◆◆ 활동이 북한의 대남 심리전에 방어하기 위한 정당한 활동이라고 믿었다. 국정원 심리전단 사건의 실체를 파악할 수 있는 정보를 전혀 접하지 못하였으며, 설령 위 사건에 관한 내부 감찰조사 결과를 알았다고 하더라도 국정원의 조직적인 정치·선거개입이 있었다고 확정적으로 인식하기 어려웠다.

(2) As to the purpose and activities of the organization of T/F by executives (defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8)

Defendant 7 merely instructed the National Assembly, the media, etc. to prepare a fundamental countermeasure against the State Institute’s principal duties so as not to be defluent, in a situation where the entire activities of the State Institute were defluent or defluated, and there was no purpose to respond to the investigation and public trial in accordance with a particular Article. Defendant 7 did not report the details of specific response measures from T/F.

간부진 T/F는 국정원의 다수 현안에 관한 부서간 정보공유와 보고의 일원화를 위한 회의체에 불과하여, 국정원 심리전단 사건의 수사 및 공판에 대한 대응기조를 설정하거나 구체적인 논의를 하지 않았다. 간부진 T/F 회의에서 ●●●●국이나 감찰실, 법률보좌관실 작성 문건을 두고 논의한 사실이 없고, 회의 진행 시간과 형식 등에 비추어 볼 때 특정 사안에 대한 논의 및 결정을 할 수도 없었다.

(3) The assertion that the working-level T/F was not led (Defendant 6)

Defendant 6 was issued as the team leader of the working-level T/F according to the class, position, position, etc., and did not constitute T/F led.

B) The assertion about obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means

(1) Defendant’s assertion that the Defendants did not conspired

(A) The assertion that the officer did not instruct the measures relating to search and seizure to T/F (Defendant 7)

Defendant 7 did not receive a report from Defendant 1 on the “Considerations related to the search and seizure of party members of the Prosecutor’s Office” or the contents discussed by the executive /F regarding the search and seizure, and there is no fact that Defendant 7 instructed the executive /F to the effect that “the time, object and method of the search and seizure are strictly limited so as not to reveal the facts of the NIS’s systematic political intervention and political intervention in the process of the search and seizure by

(B) The assertion that the officer T/F did not conspired to interfere with the search and seizure (defendants 1, 2, and 3)

피고인 1 등 간부진 T/F 구성원들은 심리전단 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실(■■■■호)에 칸막이 공사를 하는 등으로 주된 압수수색 장소인 ‘심리전단 사무실 전부’인 것처럼 꾸민 뒤, ‘국정원 심리전단의 정당한 대북심리전 활동 중에 발생한 일부 직원들의 개인적 일탈 행위’라는 기조에 부합하는 문건들을 새롭게 작출하여 비치하거나, 검찰에서 요구한 문건들의 보관 여부, 국가기밀 여부를 파악하여 놓고도 이를 제출하지 않기로 공모한 사실이 없다.

(2) The assertion that there is no involvement or intention in functional control or specific action

(A) Defendants 2, 3, and 8

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 merely participated in T/F and did not share the action, and the search and seizure took the lead in the inspection room, the legal assistant room, and the psychological leaflet, so there was no functional control over them, because they did not know that there was any specific discussion about them.

Defendant 8, as a member of the NIS, has almost every day agreed with reporters in the outside of the NIS, so the meeting of the executive members T/F A.M. at the outside of the meeting of the executive members and the meeting of the E/F A.M. was not good, and thus, Defendant 8 did not agree to interfere with the performance of official duties by deceptive means.

(B) Defendant 4

공소외 15와 공소외 16 등 직원들에게 압수수색 집행에 대비하여 ■■■■호에 칸막이를 설치하는 등 개조하고 내부에 있던 각종 자료를 모두 치워 ‘공실’로 만든 다음 그곳에 책상, 컴퓨터, 캐비닛 등과 함께 기존 ◆◆◆활동에 전혀 사용하지 않았던 속칭 ‘깡통’ 노트북 3대를 배치하여 그 장소가 '심리전단 사무실 전부‘인 것처럼 꾸미도록 지시하거나, 공소외 16을 통하여 공소외 7, 공소외 6, 공소외 17 등 심리전단 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 직원들에게 업무일지를 소지한 채 책상에 앉아 마치 그 장소에서 계속 근무하였던 것처럼 연출할 것을 지시한 사실이 없다. ‘압수수색할 물건 제출 거부 확인서’ 및 ‘압수할 물건 부존재 확인서’의 허위성을 인식하지 못하였고 다만 심리전단장으로서 서명하여 제출하였을 뿐이다. 행정적 지원업무를 하였을 뿐 어떠한 관여행위도 하지 않았고, 타인의 행위에 대하여 공모하지도 않아 기능적 행위지배가 존재하지 않는다.

(C) Defendant 6

As long as Defendant 6 was dispatched to the NIS, it is merely a reply to the question of the public prosecutor's office as the staff of the psychological team is informed, and there is no false explanation as if the place of search and seizure was the entire office of the psychological team.

(3) The argument as to the establishment of a crime (defendants)

(A) The assertion that there was no specific execution of a warrant of search and seizure.

This part of the facts charged is premised on the specific execution of duties, which is the execution of a search and seizure warrant, and at the time, public officials of the prosecution have only been submitted by the method of the primary voluntary submission among the contents stated in the search and seizure warrant, and there is no fact that they have mobilized physical force.

(B) The assertion that there was a prior coordination with the prosecutor, and that the prosecutor did not constitute a deceptive act, and that the prosecutor did not have any mistake, mistake, or omission in the site.

Prior to the search and seizure on April 30, 2013, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 3 believed that there was a little proportion between the prosecutor’s office and “to seize only the materials provided by the NIS at a predetermined place,” or that there was at least such a proportion, making only the materials selected in advance at one place of the office to be seized does not constitute a deceptive scheme, and there was no intention to interfere with the intention of deceptive scheme or the execution of official duties.

당시 압수수색에 참여한 검찰 공무원들은 ■■■■호 사무실 전체가 압수수색에 대비하여 조성한 공간이고 국정원 측에서 검찰에 제공할 자료를 미리 준비하였다는 등의 구체적인 위계행위를 미필적으로나마 인식하였으므로 오인·착각·부지에 빠지지 않았다.

(C) The assertion that the performance of duties has not occurred due to fraudulent means.

If the materials submitted voluntarily by the public prosecutor are insufficient, it did not take any means, such as forced investigation, even though it was possible to secure the materials related to the suspected crime at another office in accordance with the purport of the search and seizure warrant, and did not make any effort to confirm whether the materials refused to be submitted due to the existence or absence of State secrets in the NIS or the existence or absence of State secrets. Therefore, the failure of the public prosecutor’s office to execute search and seizure of other psychological leaflets offices or to seize materials other than those provided by the NIS is attributable to insufficient investigation by the public prosecutor.

C) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8’s violation of the National Intelligence Service Act relating to the measure to protect the victim’s clinic.

(1) The assertion that it does not constitute abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act (defendants)

In light of the language and text, legislative history, and legislative intent of Article 11(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act, the staff of the National Intelligence Service does not fall under the other party of the crime of abuse of authority under the

The examination of security, such as the treatment of the clinic, belongs to the authority and authority of Defendant 5, who is the chief of the ○○○ Office, and the inspection room employees engaged in a fact-finding act assisting Defendant 5 in the performance of duties as an inspector. Unless there is any statute or other provision stipulating the subject of and standards for the treatment of the clinic, it cannot be deemed that the inspection room employees have the inherent authority and role in the performance of duties as above. Therefore, it does not constitute “in the event of having someone perform an un

In the process of voluntarily submitting documents of Nonindicted 2’s statement, recording of Nonindicted 2’s statement, and the psychological leaflet (hereinafter “documents, such as a recording”) by the NIS’s discretion, it is excessive for the NIS to take part of the documents into account at his discretion; and as long as it is possible for the Prosecutor at the time of voluntary submission to compare the documents with the documents taken into account at the time of voluntary submission, they cannot be deemed unlawful and unfair.

(2) The assertion that no involvement in the undisclosed treatment or no functional control exists.

(A) Defendants 1, 2, and 3

In the meeting of the executive members T/F, the record of Nonindicted Party 2’s speech-making by the former president was shown, and there was no discussion or participation by the executive members on the handling of documents, such as the recording.

(B) Defendant 6

Although the lower court clearly stated that Defendant 6 is not a member of T/F, it recognized a functional control on the ground that Defendant 6 was present at the meeting of T/F at the meeting of the executive staff who discussed and decided a non-affiliated and examined the documents, such as a record that was partially closed-off, etc., but was found to have been given instructions. However, it is unreasonable that Defendant 6 also was in the position of receiving instructions,

(C) Defendant 7

Defendant 5 did not receive a report from Defendant 5 that “after a review by the T/F, the sensitive part would be submitted to the prosecution after taking all the necessary measures,” or that “a report was made by Defendant 5 that “after having had a certain political party or politician take a measure of praise, slander, or conduct an election campaign to the same purport among the documents, such as a recording, and then confirmed by the executive T/F.”

(D) Defendant 8

There is no fact that a report or discussion related to the treatment of an undisclosed has been made, and the meeting of T/F has been attended.

(3) The assertion that the content irrelevant to the case is included in the hearing chief of the NIS (Defendant 6).

The court below recognized that the crime was committed on the basis of the attached Table 7 of the judgment below, which is merely an omission of part of pages, not an intentional clinic, and that the part concerning the treatment of non-disclosure of the contents irrelevant to the suspicion of the crime, including the crime No. 7 of the crime committed in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below.

D) The assertion as to the perjury

(1) Defendant 7’s assertion that he did not invite a perjury in T/F’s direction (Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8)

Defendant 7 did not instruct the education and behavior guidelines for the direction of statement and answer by class in preparation for the legal testimony of the staff members of the hearing team via T/F, nor did he have received a report from the executive /F on such contents. There was no fact that /F members recruited the above-mentioned persons by means of prior education, etc. against the employees who work in the prosecution or court at the meeting of T/F. There was no fact that / F members recruited the above-mentioned persons through the “report on the progress of the trial.” There was no lack of knowledge that there was a short report on the employee’s return to the witness or the contents of the prosecutor’s office or the court’s statement, or that there was no fact that he received a detailed report thereon. Documents, such as various response devices, reports on the progress of the trial, anticipated questions, etc., are merely prepared by organizing objective facts based on the suspect interrogation protocol and the contents of the court’s statement for the purpose of reporting to the upper part.

(2) The assertion that the perjury was not executed through practical T/F or psychological leaflets (defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6)

Although the employee testified in the case of the NIS’s chief commissioner of the NIS, there is a need to make a false statement to the effect that he was compelled to receive perjury from the Defendants in order to avoid liability, despite having consulted with one another’s direction of the statement in order to gather crisis or having received perjury from the Defendants. Although the employees who received the above evidence are inconsistent and contradictory to each other, and it is difficult to believe that it was merely contradictory and reliable, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the teachers’ act at the level of executive officer, working staff, and working-level T/F was conducted.

(3) The assertion that he did not participate in the recruitment of perjury (Defendant 5)

Defendant 5 asserted that Defendant 5 instructed employees to take the direction of testimony from T/F, and made it clear from the beginning that Defendant 5 participated in the contents of testimony, and there is no fact that Defendant 5 conspireded to do so or participated in it.

E) Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6’s assertion as to the escape of witness

(1) Defendant 6’s assertion of infringement of defense right

The facts charged against Defendant 6 reveal that Defendant 6 reported to T/F that Nonindicted 1 was required to appear as a witness in the trial of the NIS case. However, the lower court acknowledged that Defendant 6, without going through the amendment process, voluntarily revised it and decided that Defendant 6, Defendant 4, and Nonindicted 1, were unable to appear as witness of the above trial, thereby infringing Defendant 6’s defense right.

(2) The assertion that he did not participate in the crime of this part of the facts charged

(A) Defendant 4

Non-Indicted 1's request to help him not attend as a witness was rejected.

(B) Defendant 5

During the meeting of the executive members T/F, Nonindicted Party 1 expressed his/her explicit objection to the business trip, and thereafter, he/she did not participate in the business related to Nonindicted Party 1’s business trip.

(C) Defendant 6

There was no conspiracy or participation in Nonindicted 1’s witness escape. Some of the statements made by Defendant 4, Defendant 8, and Nonindicted 18 to the effect that Defendant 6 mentioned Nonindicted 1’s business trip problem is not reliable.

F) Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6’s assertion as to the fact-finding related to the preparation of false official documents and the uttering of false official documents

(1) Defendant 4

There is only the fact that Nonindicted 17 requested for the preparation of a reply to the fact-finding through Nonindicted 16 and refused to do so, and there was no public contest to prepare and submit documents containing false contents, and there was no fact that Nonindicted 17 shared the act of practice.

(2) Defendant 5

The head of ○○ Office did not pay attention to the falsity of the content of the document within the scope of his/her authority, and did not prepare and submit documents stating false details, and there is no fact that the head of ○ Office did not participate in the examination of security within the scope of his/her authority.

(3) Defendant 6

As a working-level, he prepared a draft reply to the fact-finding, and requested the head of the competent department to confirm the accuracy and supplement of the contents in the deliberation leaflet, and then he did not recognize the falsity only based on the contents of the reply.

G) Defendant 3’s assertion as to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act regarding the funding of the remuneration organization

(1) The assertion that it does not constitute abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act

Since the scope of the NIS’s domestic business is strictly limited, there is no general authority to request the head of △△△△△△△△ of the NIS to provide financial support to a large enterprise, and even when comprehensively and practically observe laws and systems, it cannot be deemed that there is unconstitutional general authority that infringes on the company’s private autonomy.

(2) The assertion that he did not participate in the crime of this part of the facts charged

(A) Part of 2013 201 201 201 201

After being appointed as the Director General of △△△△△△△△ on April 12, 2013, no order was issued to anyone who is requested to provide financial support to the remuneration organization. Furthermore, the lower court specified the timing of this part of the crime as of April 2013, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, but it is difficult to understand it in light of the fact that the head of △△△△△△△△ and the head of 1 affiliated with △△△△△△△△△△ was the father on April 29, 2013.

Inasmuch as there is no penal provision for attempted abuse of authority under Articles 19 and 11(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act, the crime of abuse of authority is not established unless Defendant 3 did not have any actual duty to do so. Even if Defendant 3’s order that Nonindicted 19 et al. requested financial support to △△△, Nonindicted 20 of the planning team leader of the △△ Future Strategy Office at the time when Nonindicted 19 et al. appeared to have shown a dynamic response thereto, and did not take measures, such as recommendation and pressure by Nonindicted 19 et al. using the authority for duties, so the result did not occur.

원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(3) - ◇◇ 중 ‘▽▽▽▽▽’, ‘◎◎◎◎◎◎복지재단’에 대한 자금지원 부분은 국정원의 요청으로 인한 것이 아니라 ◇◇ 또는 ◁◁◁이 자발적으로 지원한 것임에도 원심은 위 범죄일람표 기재 자금지원 내역 전부에 대하여 피고인 3의 지시와 인과관계가 있다고 사실을 오인하였다.

(나) 2014년 ◇◇을 통한 ▷▷▷ 자금지원 요청 부분

2014. 4.경 ◇◇에 ▷▷▷에 대한 자금지원을 요청하라고 지시하거나 결과를 보고 받은 사실이 없고, 직접 공소외 21 등을 만나 완곡하게나마 그에 관하여 요청을 한 사실도 없다. 당시 ▷▷▷ 자금지원 문제는 공소외 22 기획조정실장이 먼저 ◇◇과 접촉하여 자금지원 여부를 타진하는 방식을 거친 것으로서, 대정부전복국의 통상적인 지휘계통을 통해 자금지원 요청이 이루어지지 않았다.

(C) The part requesting financial support of repair organizations through the △△△ in 2014

2014. 2.경 공소외 23 등에게 ☆☆에 보수단체 자금지원을 요청하라고 지시한 바가 없고 그 결과를 보고 받은 사실도 없다. 당시 사의를 표명한 직후로서 보수단체 자금지원과 같이 민감한 업무를 지시할 상황이 아니었고, 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(4) - ☆☆ 중 ‘♤♤♤♤’과 ‘♡♡♡♡♡행동’, ‘◎◎◎◎◎◎복지재단’에 대한 자금지원은 청와대와 관계가 깊은 공소외 23의 주도로 이루어졌을 가능성이 크다.

H) As to Defendant 8’s assertion on the preparation of a false official document and the presentation of a false official document

(1) The assertion that the news material is not the object of the crime of preparing false official document

Report materials can not be the object of the crime of preparation of a false official document because they contain the position or opinion of the preparing agency.

(2) The assertion that he did not recognize the falsity of the news report material

There was no perception of intention or falsity since the government officials' activities to publicize the government's policies should be carried out as a matter of course, and each report is prepared in accordance with the perception that they are not illegal political interventions.

With respect to the news report materials dated December 11, 2012 and December 12, 2012, the most important interest at the time was Nonindicted 7’s comments on actual election, whether Nonindicted 7 had engaged in comments on political issues, whether Nonindicted 7 had Trade North Korea, etc., and whether an officetel was Nonindicted 7’s residence. Defendant 8 asked Nonindicted 14 at the time whether Nonindicted 7 was Nonindicted 24 at the time, and explained that Nonindicted 14 was confirmed to have not written comments on political matters. Defendant 8 was unable to recognize the falsity of each of the above news report materials without any other evidence. The part that “Non-Indicted 14 has no political issues,” and the part that “non-Indicted 7 has clearly abided by political neutrality” did not include any intentional intent to make a false statement.

2013. 1. 31.자 및 2013. 3. 18.자 보도자료는 수서경찰서에서 국가정보원법위반 의견으로 공소외 7 등을 검찰에 송치하기 전 작성된 것으로서, 당시 국정원은 심리전단 직원의 ◆◆◆활동이 정당한 대북심리전 활동이고 대선개입은 전혀 없었다는 입장이었고 피고인 8도 위와 같은 입장을 견지하였으므로, 위 각 보도자료의 내용이 허위라고 인식하지 못하였다.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed on the Defendants (Defendant 1: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment; 2 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 3 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 2 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 1 year of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 2 years of imprisonment; 5 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 1 year of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 1 year of imprisonment and 6 years of suspension of qualifications; 1 year and 1 year of suspension of qualifications; 7: 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; 2 years of suspension of qualifications; 8: one year of imprisonment and 1 year of suspension of qualifications) are too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Defendant 5’s assertion as to admissibility of each prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 5

Although Defendant 5 was a witness in the court of the court below and acknowledged the authenticity of each suspect interrogation protocol for himself, the court below did not recognize the admissibility of each suspect interrogation protocol for the remaining Defendants except Defendant 5 on the ground that there was no opportunity for cross-examination.

B) Defendant 4’s assertion as to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act regarding the measure to protect the victim.

The voluntary submission to the prosecutor’s office of May 10, 2013 was made on April 30, 2013 on the extension line of search and seizure, and the documents processed without the clinic were voluntarily submitted under the name of Defendant 4, and the majority of the documents related to the activities of the psychological leaflet were included. As such, Defendant 4 participated in the handling of documents to be voluntarily submitted without relation to the attendance at the executive T/F meeting. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged on Defendant 4’s violation of the National Intelligence Service Act.

C) Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 8’s assertion as to the preparation of false official documents related to the fact-finding, and the presentation of false official documents

증인도피의 점과 관련하여, 입증계획서 제출 및 증인신청은 당일 즉석에서 이루어지는 것이 아니라 그 이전 공판기일부터 논의가 이루어지는 것이 통상적이어서 이 사건의 경우에도 2014. 4. 14. 검찰의 증인신청서가 제출되고 즉시 채택된 것에 비추어 그 전 기일부터 구두로 논의가 되었다고 봄이 상당하며, 공소외 1의 출장 경위, 소요 예산 등에 비추어 ◀◀지부 자체에서 단독으로 공소외 1의 해외 출장을 결정할 수 없음이 명백하므로, 간부진 T/F가 이를 결정한 것이다.

With regard to the preparation of a false official document and the exercise of a false official document, it is natural to see that the executive /F had discussed and decided on the reply to fact-finding in the extension of the notification on Nonindicted Party 1 witness and overseas business trip, and that the practice took charge of Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted Party 17.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 8 of the facts charged as to the escape of witness was erroneous and erroneous.

D) Defendant 8-2’s assertion as to the preparation of a false official document and the exercise of a false official document on December 16, 2012

2012. 12. 16.자 보도자료 내용 중 「민주당이 제기한 ‘국정원의 조직적 비방 댓글’ 주장은 사실 무근임이 드러났다」는 부분은 단순히 국정원이 ‘선거개입에 해당하는 ◆◆◆ 활동을 하지 않았다’는 것에 국한되지 않고 ‘조직적 비방 댓글 활동을 하지 않았다’, ‘정치적 중립을 지켰다’는 의미로 해석함이 상당하며, 위와 같이 해석하지 않는다고 하더라도 피고인 8은 위 내용 자체의 허위성을 인식하였다. 그럼에도 피고인 8의 이 부분 허위공문서작성 및 허위작성공문서행사의 점에 관한 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 원심판결에는 사실을 오인한 잘못이 있다.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. Determination as to the assertion on the premise facts acknowledged by the court below

1) Whether the Defendants’ perception of the substance of the case by the NIS Review Team

A) Defendant 7’s perception of, and establishment of response to, Defendant 7’s case

⑴ 원심은, 피고인 7이 국정원장 인사청문회 준비, 부서별 업무보고, 감찰실의 감찰 결과 보고 등을 거치면서 공소외 2 전 국정원장의 지시에 따라 심리전단 ◆◆◆팀 직원들과 외부조력자들이 조직적으로 정치관여 행위 및 선거개입의 소지가 있는 ◆◆◆ 활동을 전개한 사실을 알게 되었음에도, 국정원 심리전단 사건의 성격을 ‘공소외 2 전 국정원장의 지시에 따른 국정원 심리전단의 조직적 ◆◆◆ 활동’이 아니라 ‘정당한 대북 심리전 활동 중에 발생한 일부 직원들의 개인적인 일탈’이라고 규정하고, ●●●●국이 2013. 4. 18. 작성한 ‘여직원 감금사건 수사관련 파급영향 및 대응방향’ 문건과 2013. 4. 19. 작성한 ‘여직원 댓글사건 수사관련 파급영향 및 대응방향’ 문건이 피고인 7에게 실제로 보고되었는지 여부는 알 수 없으나, 그 내용에 비추어 당시 피고인 7을 비롯한 국정원 지휘부가 국정원 심리전단 사건에 대한 검찰의 수사결과에 따라 조직적 정치관여·선거개입이 드러날 경우 국정원에 대한 무력화 시도 및 대정부 공세가 격화될 것을 우려하면서 이에 체계적으로 대응해야 한다는 인식을 가지고 있었다고 판단하였다.

⑵ 원심이 든 사정에다가 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사실 내지 사정을 더하여 보면, 피고인 7은 공소외 2의 지시에 따라 국정원 심리전단이 조직적으로 정치관여 및 선거개입에 해당할 소지가 있는 ◆◆◆ 활동을 전개한 사실을 알고도 국정원 심리전단 사건의 수사 및 재판 과정에서 위와 같은 사실이 드러나 국정원 조직 및 업무가 위축될 것을 우려하여 수사 범위를 최소화하기 위한 대응의 필요성을 인식하였음을 알 수 있으므로, 같은 취지의 원심 판단은 정당하다. 따라서 이를 다투는 피고인 7의 주장은 이유 없다.

① On March 22, 2013, in the course of preparing for a personnel hearing held by the president on March 22, 2013, Defendant 7 received a report on the instant case from Nonindicted 14, the former president of the NIS, which was a major pending issue of the NIS. On April 2013, Defendant 7 received a report on the instant case from the relevant department, such as the Vice Director of the NIS, the delegate, and the Legal Assistant, etc. around April 2013. Defendant 8 also stated in the court of the lower court that “after Nonindicted 7 was replaced by an officetel on December 2012, 2012, Defendant 7 filed a report on the instant case with the president of the NIS by arranging the contents of the press report on the instant case of the NIS, the progress of the investigation, and the summary of the report submitted by the NIS.”

② 피고인 7의 지시에 따라 이루어진 감찰조사 결과로 보이는 2013. 4. 1.자 ‘◆◆◆ 심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인’ 문건에는 “대선정국을 앞둔 ’12.8월 이후 12국 ◆◆◆심리전 활동 적법성 여부 확인결과, 원 차원의 조직적 ‘대선관련 댓글’ 등 정치관여 행위는 없었으나 국정홍보·좌파견제 활동 중 일부 정치적 시비소지 확인”, “게시글 및 트윗글 작성시 ▲▲▲▲ 1팀에서 매일 배포하는 ‘금일 대응논지’(5건) 참고”, “전 원장 지시(전부서장회의) 및 팀 활동지시서(‘금일 대응논지’)에 4대강사업·제주 복합미항 등 국정홍보 내용 포함, 원 직무범위 논란소지”, “경찰, 공소외 7이 수십개 ID로 4대강 홍보·공소외 25 비판 관련 조직적인 댓글을 단 정황 발견(__국 첩보)”, “특정 정치인 비난내용까지 특별한 의식없이 ‘리트윗’, 문제 소지”, “한편, 대선 정국이 본격화 되기 전인 ’12.7월까지는 전 원장의 종북세력 척결 강조 등으로 논란소지 댓글이 상당수 존재할 것으로 추정 *공소외 26 실체 폭로(’09.9월·’10.9월 등), 반정부 보도행태 언론 대응(’10.8월) 심리전 전개 등 지시” 등의 내용이 기재되어 있다. 이는 대선이 임박한 2012. 8.경 이후 직접적으로 대선개입에 해당하는 내용의 지시 또는 활동을 찾지 못하였다는 취지일 뿐, 공소외 2의 지시로 국정원 심리전단이 정치관여 및 다른 선거개입의 소지가 있는 조직적인 ◆◆◆ 활동을 하였음을 인식하기에 충분한 정보를 담고 있다. 피고인 5가 2013. 4. 24.경 출력한 ‘여직원 사건 댓글 점검 계획’ 문건에는 위 감찰조사 결과가 요약되어 있고, 이와 함께 ‘추가 확인 필요성’, ‘게시글 추가 탐지 시 문제 글 추가발견 및 보안누출 우려가 있어 당사자들로부터 게시글 출력본을 자진 제출받아 압수수색 시 제출’ 등의 내용이 기재되어 있기도 하다.

③ Defendant 7 asserted that Defendant 5, who is the former head of ○○○○ or the new head of ○○○○○○○○ Office, instructed the staff of the NIS to inspect their duties, but only reported to the effect that it was an individual activity of some of the staff of the two psychological teams. However, in light of the content of the above documents, Defendant 7 was unaware of the fact that the said documents could not have been systematically organized, and it is difficult to deem that Defendant 7 could have been aware of the fact that the said documents had been actually organized, and that Defendant 5 had no problem with Defendant 7 at his discretion, notwithstanding the result of the inspection and investigation.

B) The perception of the remaining Defendants’ case of the NIS

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, even though it is recognized that the actual contents of the NIS case, like Defendant 1 and the members of T/F, Defendant 4, and Defendant 6, as Defendant 7, are likely to correspond to the organized political intervention and election intervention in accordance with the direction of Nonindicted 2, the court below shared the nature of and the direction for response to the NIS’s psychological team established by Defendant 7. Therefore, the arguments of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 8 disputing this are without merit.

① ●●●●국에서 2013. 4. 19. 작성한 ‘여직원 댓글사건 수사관련 파급영향 및 대응방향’ 문건에는 “이들은(심리전단) 전 원장 등 간부들의 지시·말씀사항을 참고로 현안대응기조를 설정, 종북성향 사이트(11개)·주요 포털 및 트위터에 종북좌파 비판 및 국정홍보 댓글 게재·리트윗 등 업무 수행 *총 1,067개 ID로 작년 12월까지 1인당 일평균 23건 댓글·62건 글 리트윗 - 특히, 지난 서울시장 보궐선거(2011.10)·총선(2012.4) 당시 야당후보·좌파인사 비판글을 집중 게재설”, “- 대선에서는 정치개입 시비소지를 염두에 둔 신중한 활동을 주문하면서도 기존 종북세력 비판·국정성과 홍보업무에 진력할 것을 독려 - 또한, 심리전단 내 전 원장 친위그룹을 통해 선거 업무를 수행하라는 비공식 지시를 은밀히 내렸다는 의혹도 제기, 외부 가장체 설립·유급 알바생 고용을 통해 ◆◆◆여론을 조작했다는 여론” 등의 내용이 기재되어 있다. 위 문건에 기재된 구체적인 수치는 앞서 본 감찰조사 결과 문건과 정확하게 일치하고, 2012년 대선에 임박한 시기와 이전 시기를 나누어 서술하였으며 심리전단의 조직 및 연혁에 관한 정보가 포함되어 있다는 점에서 내용 구성도 유사하다. ●●●●국 과장 공소외 27은 원심 법정에서 ‘위 문건을 직접 작성하였는지 후배 직원을 통하여 작성하였는지 여부는 기억나지 않는다. 서면자료를 받지 않고 심리전단과 연락을 주고 받으며 얻은 정보를 토대로 했던 것 같다’고 진술하였는데, 위와 같은 사정에 비추어 어떠한 형식으로든 감찰조사 결과를 토대로 작성한 것으로 보인다. 위 보고서는 나아가 첩보, 여론을 기반으로 외곽팀 의혹을 거론하는 등 국정원 심리전단 사건의 실체에 관하여 비교적 정확하게 파악하고 있다. 공소외 27은 검찰 및 원심 법정에서 ‘국정원 심리전단 사건 대응 관련 보고서 중 피고인 2의 지시를 받지 않고 쓴 것은 없으며, 단장을 거치지 않고 직접 지시하였다’는 취지로 진술하였는바, 적어도 피고인 2는 이를 보고 받았을 것으로 보인다.

② 한편 위 문건에는 “통상적인 ◆◆◆ 종북세력 모니터링 및 대응 활동으로 확인 ⇒ 순수 국정홍보성 댓글 관련 국내정보업무 범위 논란에 대한 방어·대응에 초점 *일부 정치관여 시비 댓글·찬반표시 행위는 개인적 돌출행동으로 치부”, “전원장 연계 비선 라인의 ‘일탈행동’ ⇒ 비선 라인 및 연루직원 사법처리를 통한 꼬리 자르기로 사건 확대 방지 및 조직 보호”, “전 원장 지시에 따른 ‘조직적 활동’ ⇒ 전 원장 및 계선라인 등 지휘부를 사법처리하는 선에서 피해 최소화에 주력 *전 원장이 지휘책임을 감수토록 설득, 직원 피해·개인 비리 최소화 빅딜방안 강구” 등의 내용이 기재되어 있다. 피고인 2는 원심 법정에서 위 문건의 작성 경위와 관련하여 ‘여직원 감금사건 수사관련 파급영향 및 대응방향’ 문건의 내용이 부정확하고 부적절하여 전면 재작성을 지시하였다는 취지로 증언하였다. 일부 피고인들은 이를 두고 국정원 측에서 사건의 실체를 인식하지 못하였다는 방증이라고 주장하나, 오히려 국정원 측에서 심리전단의 ◆◆◆ 활동 중 일부가 순수한 국정홍보 목적이거나 정치관여행위에 해당할 수 있고, 위와 같은 활동이 공소외 2의 지시에 따라 조직적으로 이루어졌을 가능성을 염두에 두고 있었다는 점이 드러난다.

③ 피고인 2는 원심 법정에서 간부진 T/F 내 스스로의 역할에 관하여 ‘대정부전복국과 지부 정보처에 있는 첩보, 언론, 인터넷 등에 있는 국정원과 관련된 각종 주장이나 개혁논의, 각종 단체에 국정원과 관련된 찬반시위 등과 관련된 상황을 종합해서 보고하는 것’이라고 증언하였는바, 그 무렵 개최된 간부진 T/F 회의에서 위와 같은 내용을 언급하였을 개연성이 높다. 피고인 6이 간부진 T/F에 보고한 ‘현안 사건 관련 압수대상물 검토’에 ‘__국 ◆◆◆심리전 활동 직무감찰계획(13. 3. 27.)’ 및 ‘__국 ◆◆◆심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인(13. 4. 1.)’이 포함되어 있었는바, 위 감찰조사 결과 자체도 간부진 T/F에서 공유되었을 가능성이 있다.

④ Defendant 6, the senior research officer of the NIS, directly examined the police investigation records of the case of the senior police officer of the NIS immediately after his appointment and reported it to T/F to the effect that there is room for dispute over the suspected violation of the NISA or the suspicion of violation of the Public Official Election Act.

(ii)the purpose and activities of organizing T/F of executives;

⑴ 원심은, ① ●●●●국에서 2013. 4. 22. 작성한 ‘여직원 댓글 사건 관련 유관부서 회의결과’ 문건에 국정원 심리전단 사건 수사에 전방위적으로 대응하기 위하여 각 부서별 역할을 분담하고, 매일 상황점검을 위한 회의를 개최한다는 계획이 기재되어 있는 점, ② ●●●●국이 국정원 심리전단 사건에 관한 각종 보고서를 작성하고 감찰실·법률보좌관실·심리전단이 압수수색에 종합적이고 체계적으로 대응한 점, ③ 압수수색 시 어느 범위에서 어떠한 자료를 제출할지 여부의 최종 검토, 임의제출 할 공소외 2 발언 녹취록 등의 비닉조치 검토 등이 간부진 T/F에서 이루어졌다고 인정되는 점, ④ 국정원 심리전단 사건에 대한 수사와 재판이 진행되는 동안 간부진 T/F가 1년 가까운 기간 거의 매일, 경우에 따라 하루 두 번 이상 회의를 하기도 한 점, ⑤ 국정원 심리전단 사건의 유관부서 부서장들을 대상으로 하는 간부진 T/F가 구성되어 활동하였음에도 별도의 유관부서 회의체에서 국정원 심리전단 사건에 대한 수사와 재판 대응방안을 따로 결정하여 실행했을 것으로 볼 수는 없는 점 등의 사정을 종합하면, 간부진 T/F는 피고인 7 국정원장의 지시에 따라 국정원 심리전단 사건에 대한 수사 및 재판에 종합적이고 체계적으로 대응하기 위한 대응방향을 결정하고 이를 실행하는 회의체였음을 충분히 인정할 수 있다고 판단하였다.

Examining the circumstances set forth by the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. Therefore, the allegation by Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 disputing this is without merit.

3) Details of the working-level T/F composition

(1) The lower court determined that Defendant 6 constituted a working-level T/F comprised of Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 31, etc., working-level staff of the third Vice Chief of Review Team, including Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 28, an attorney-at-law belonging to the legal assistant office, Nonindicted 18, and Nonindicted 29, an attorney-at-law belonging to the legal assistant office, who is an attorney-at-law belonging to the legal assistant office, and an attorney-at-law belonging to the second Vice Chief of Review Team.

D. Defendant 8 stated in the prosecutor's office and the court below's court that "at the time when the defendant 6 was on the executive T/F, the defendant 6 made a request for the further direction of the executive members so that they can perform the work easily and efficiently," and that Defendant 6 voluntarily made the documents "workingT/F composition and operation plan related to pending issues". Thus, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable, and the defendant 6's assertion disputing this is without merit.

B. Defendants’ obstruction of the performance of official duties by deceptive means

1) The Defendants’ public invitation relationship

A) Whether Defendant 7’s instruction on search and seizure was given

⑴ 원심은, ① 피고인 7의 정책특보 공소외 32의 일관된 진술에 비추어 피고인 7이 당초 압수수색을 당하는 것에 부정적인 입장이었다가 피고인 5 등의 압수수색 관련 검토 및 보고 과정을 거치면서 압수수색을 승낙하기로 하고, 아울러 이와 관련된 지시를 하였을 것으로 보이는 점, ② ●●●●국에서 2013. 4. 16.자 ‘검찰의 당원 압수수색 추진시 고려사항’과 ‘검찰의 당원 압수수색 추진 관련 분위기 및 고려사항’ 문건을 작성하였는데, 그 내용은 압수수색을 최대한 저지하되 불가피한 경우 시기·장소·방법을 제한한다는 것으로서 위 각 문건의 배포선에 피고인 7이 포함되어 있는바, 피고인 7이 위와 같은 내용의 보고를 받았다고 보이는 점, ③ 위 공소외 32가 작성한 엑셀파일에 의하면, 피고인 7이 2013. 4. 22. 피고인 1에게 ‘검찰의 압수수색을 받아들일 경우 절차와 내용에 대한 검토’를 할 것을 지시하였고, 피고인 1이 2013. 4. 23. 피고인 7에게 ‘국정원 여직원 댓글 사건 문제’에 대하여 보고한 것으로 기재되어 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인 7은 2013. 4. 22.경 피고인 1에게 검찰의 압수수색을 받아들일 경우 그 절차와 내용을 검토하여 보고하도록 지시하고, 피고인 1은 간부진 T/F 회의를 통해 피고인 5에게 위와 같은 사항을 검토하여 보고하도록 지시하여, 피고인 5가 2013. 4. 23.경 간부진 T/F 회의에서 ‘국정원 정치개입 의혹 사건 관련 압수수색 범위 검토’를 보고하고, 피고인 1은 이를 토대로 피고인 2를 통하여 정리한 ‘검찰의 당원 압수수색 관련 고려사항’을 피고인 7에게 보고하였으며, 피고인 7은 위와 같은 보고를 받고 승인하면서 사전에 철저히 압수수색 시기, 대상, 방법을 제한하여 검찰의 압수수색 과정에서 국정원의 조직적 정치관여·대선개입 사실이 드러나지 않도록 조치하라는 지시를 하였다고 판단하였다.

Examining the circumstances set forth by the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. Accordingly, Defendant 7’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

B) Whether the executive /F interfered with the search and seizure of T/F

(1) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 피고인 7의 위와 같은 지시에 따라 피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 5, 피고인 8과 공소외 3 등 간부진 T/F 구성원들은 그 무렵 심리전단 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실(■■■■호)을 주된 압수수색 장소인 ‘심리전단 사무실 전부’인 것처럼 꾸민 뒤, ‘국정원 심리전단의 정당한 대북 심리전 활동 중에 발생한 일부 직원들의 개인적 일탈 행위’라는 기조에 부합하는 문건들을 새롭게 작출하거나 간부진 T/F 회의를 거쳐 선별된 문건들 일부를 비닉처리한 후 위와 같이 꾸며진 위장 사무실에 비치하기로 결정하고, 2013. 4. 28.경부터 간부진 T/F 회의에 참석한 피고인 6을 비롯한 감찰실, 심리전단 등 부서원들에게 위와 같은 간부진 T/F의 결정을 하달하여 각 부서별 기능에 맞게 임무를 분장하여 체계적으로 검찰의 압수수색 집행에 대비하였다고 판단하였다.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

비록 간부진 T/F 회의에서 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실인 ■■■■호에 칸막이 공사를 하여 위 사무실을 ‘심리전단 사무실 전부’인 것처럼 꾸미거나 심리전단의 ◆◆◆ 활동이 정당한 대북 심리전 활동인 것처럼 보일 수 있는 문건을 작출하기로 결정하였다는 사실을 인정할 직접적인 증거는 없으나, 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사실 내지 사정에 비추어 보면, 위 사무실에 대한 칸막이 공사나 문건 작출도 간부진 T/F의 압수수색 대비 활동의 일환으로서 피고인 1 등 간부진 T/F 구성원들에 의하여 결정된 사실이 인정되므로, 같은 취지의 원심의 판단은 정당하다. 따라서 이를 다투는 피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3의 주장은 이유 없다.

(A) The part of the office building of psychological leaflets, such as partition construction

① 감찰실이 작성한 ‘검찰 압수수색 대비 리허설’ 문건에는 “2013. 4. 29(월) 20:00 심리전단(구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀) 등 압수수색 대상 사무실에 검찰 압수수색 대비 리허설 실시”, “압수대상 문서철은 심리전단 해당팀에 전달 보관, 수색대상 사무실 내 캐비닛에 일체 서류·자료 치울 것”, “압수수색 사무실에 처장·과장 및 직원(공소외 7, 공소외 17, 공소외 6) 위치”, “압수수색 대상은 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실로 한정”이라는 내용이, ‘검찰 압수수색 대비 리허설(1차 4.29)시 강조사항’ 문건에는 “구안보3팀 사무실: 수색반에 제공할 문서철 외 사무실 캐비닛 및 문서함에서 모든 업무 관련 서류를 치울 것”, “압수수색과 관련 없는 2동 5·6층 사무실은 보안상 무슨 일을 하는지 알 수 없다고 대응하고, 압수수색과 관계없는 사무실은 시건 장치”라는 내용이 기재되어 있다. 이에 비추어 간부진 T/F에서 사전에 ‘압수수색 장소를 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실인 ■■■■호로 한정하고 일체의 자료를 치운 다음 그 곳에 미리 검토된 자료를 비치하여 압수되도록 한다’는 압수수색 장소 조성 계획이 결정되어 있었음을 알 수 있다. 나아가 공소외 16, 공소외 9, 공소외 15 등의 원심 법정 진술에 의하면 압수수색 시점인 2013. 4. 30. 이전에는 심리전단 조직 개편이 완료되지 아니하여 심리전단 각 팀 사무실은 1동과 2동 5, 6층 등에 흩어져 있었고, ‘국민일보 원 위장 사무실 압수수색 허용 보도 확인결과’에 의하면 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실은 2013. 3. 말경 1동에 있다가 2동 5층으로 이전하였는바, 위 계획은 이전한 지 얼마 되지 않은 위 ■■■■호 사무실을 제외한 나머지 구 ▲▲▲▲ 1, 2, 5팀의 사무실을 배제하는 내용이기도 하다.

② ‘총무국 영선 업무일지(■■■■~2504호실 칸막이 작업 기재)’에 의하면 위 ■■■■호 사무실 칸막이 설치 공사는 2013. 4. 29. 이루어졌고, 심리전단 ◆◆◆대응 2팀장 공소외 16은 원심 법정에서 압수수색 전날 오후 7시경 칸막이 공사가 완료되었다고 진술하였으며, 증거로 제출된 압수수색 관련 국정원 내부 문건에 위 ■■■■호 사무실의 ‘공실화’ 외에 칸막이를 치는 등 사무실 자체를 개조한다는 취지의 기재는 찾아볼 수 없으므로, 칸막이 공사 자체가 사전에 미리 계획되어 있었다고 보이지는 않는다. 그러나 앞서 본 간부진 T/F의 압수수색 장소에 관한 계획의 내용과 피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 5, 피고인 6과 공소외 3이 압수수색 전날 위 사무실을 시찰하거나 방문한 점, 심리전단 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 5파트 직원 공소외 6이 검찰에서 ‘공소외 17이 회의가 끝나고 칸막이 공사가 끝날 때까지 사무실 밖에 나가 있으라고 지시하여 사무실에 나와 있는 수밖에 없었다’고 진술한 점, 공소외 16 등 팀장급 직원이 단독으로 다음 날 검찰의 압수수색이 예정된 사무실에 칸막이를 설치하기로 결정한 다음 이를 시설처에 요청할 수 있다고 보기도 어려운 점, 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인 6이 국정원 직원들과 함께 위 ■■■■호 사무실을 ‘심리전단 사무실 전부’인 것처럼 설명한 점 등에 비추어 피고인들 중 일부가 시찰 내지 방문 과정에서 위 ■■■■호 사무실에 칸막이를 설치하기로 결정하고 곧바로 실행에 옮긴 것으로 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

(나) 심리전단 ◆◆◆ 활동의 정당성을 드러내기 위한 문건 작출 부분

① 법률보좌관 연구관 피고인 6 등은 2013. 4. 28. ‘현안사건 관련 압수대상물 검토’ 문건을 작성하였다. 이 문건은 압수수색 당시 제출할 자료의 제공 여부에 관하여 법률보좌관실 및 감찰실의 의견을 기재한 것이다. 피고인 6은 원심 법정에서 2013. 4. 28.경 처음으로 간부진 T/F 회의에 참석하여 위 문건으로 보고를 하였는데, 특히 위 문건 중 ‘제공 여부’에 ‘△’라고 기재하고, ‘의견’에 ‘정책 결정 필요’라고 기재한 자료는 그 제출 여부를 간부진 T/F 회의에서 최종적으로 결정하라는 의미였다고 진술하였다. 위 문건에서 검토된 압수대상물 중 ‘2012. 2. 6.자 인터넷 포털 좌 편향 실태 및 관리 방안’, ‘2011. 10. 20.자 ◆◆◆ 좌경화 대책 관련 회의 참석 협조(첨부: ◆◆◆상 종북세력 일소대책)’, ‘2013. 4. 1.자 12국 ◆◆◆ 심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인’ 등의 자료는 법률보좌관실에서 ‘제공 여부’에 ‘△’라고 기재하였고, ‘2013. 4. 1.자 12국 ◆◆◆ 심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인’ 자료는 법률보좌관실에서 ‘의견’에 ‘정책 결정 필요’라고 기재하고 있는데, 위 각 자료는 검찰의 2013. 4. 30.자 압수수색 당시 압수가 되지 않았다. 이에 비추어 보면 간부진 T/F에서 압수수색 당시 제출될 서류를 선별하였음을 알 수 있다.

② 심리전단 ◆◆◆대응 1팀장 공소외 15는 원심 법정에서 ‘압수수색 전주에 감찰실 공소외 4 과장이나 그 부하 직원이 다음 주에 압수수색이 있어 국정원 ◆◆◆ 활동의 필요성이나 정당성을 알릴 수 있는 자료가 필요하다고 하여 직원들이 3건 정도를 만들어 감찰실에 주었다’는 취지로 진술한 반면(검찰에서는 공소외 4가 요청하였다고 진술함), 감찰실 보안처 과장 공소외 4는 원심 법정에서 ‘공소외 15에게 압수수색에 대비하여 자료를 만들라는 요청을 하지 않았으며, 과장으로서 처장인 공소외 15에게 그러한 요청을 할 수 있는 지위에 있지도 않다’는 취지로 진술하여, 진술 내용이 상이하기는 하다. 그러나 당시 감찰실이 압수수색 주무부서로서 ○○실장 피고인 5의 지휘 아래 심리전단 등으로부터 검찰에 제공할 자료를 받아 보안성 검토를 하고 이를 편철하여 ■■■■호에 비치하는 역할을 하였던 점, 공소외 15가 원심 법정에서 ‘제출 대상 서류를 선별한 다음 공소외 33 직무대리에게 보고하였고, 급조한 자료 3건은 다른 자료들보다 늦게 추가적으로 검토하여 감찰실에 주었다’고 하는 등 당시 문건을 작출한 경위에 대하여 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어, 공소외 15의 위 진술은 신빙성이 있다. 그런데 위와 같은 결정을 감찰실 실무자들이 자체적으로 하였다고는 보기 어렵고, 결국 위와 같이 압수수색 당시 자료의 제공 여부에 관하여 의견을 개진하고 이를 최종적으로 결정하였던 피고인 1 등 간부진 T/F 구성원들이 압수수색에 대비하여 문건을 작출하기로 하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

③ 피고인 3은, 만일 간부진 T/F에서 심리전단의 ◆◆◆ 활동이 정당한 대북 심리전 활동인 것처럼 보일 수 있는 문건을 새롭게 작출하기로 결정하였다면 더욱 면밀하게 감찰실이나 법률보좌관실의 검토를 거쳐 간부진 T/F에서 그 내용에 대한 최종 확인을 했어야 마땅하고, 급조된 3건의 문건 중 1건만 나중에 제출할 이유도 없었을 것이라고 주장한다. 그러나 처음부터 압수수색에 대비하여 작출한 문건이라면 감찰실의 보안성 검토를 거치는 외에 별도로 제공 여부를 검토할 필요가 없었을 것인 점, 급조된 문건 중 나중에 제출된 ‘◆◆◆ 활동 이슈 선정 및 대응활동 절차’ 문건은 심리전단의 ◆◆◆활동이 북한·안보 관련 이슈를 선정하여 이루어진다는 내용을 포함하고 있기는 하지만, 이슈 선정 과정과 금일 이슈 및 대응논지에 관한 언급이 주를 이루고 심리전단 ◆◆◆ 활동의 필요성 및 정당성을 특별히 부각하는 내용은 아닌 점, 당시 압수된 물건 중 ‘현안 사건 관련 압수대상물 검토’에 포함되지 않은 자료 중 일부는 처음부터 비치되었고 일부는 나중에 제공되기도 하였던 점 등에 비추어 피고인 3의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

④ Defendant 3 asserts that even if Nonindicted 15, at the time, stated false facts, only reported it to Nonindicted 33, and since the executives T/F members did not receive and review the report, Defendant 3 did not understand the authenticity of each of the above documents. However, Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that when two or more persons jointly commit a crime, each of them shall be punished as a principal offender for the crime. Thus, it does not necessarily include cases where the Defendants jointly commit a crime with the intent to jointly commit an act that constitutes the elements of a crime, but also jointly commit a crime with the intent to jointly commit an act that constitutes the elements of a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 204Do6349, Dec. 24, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6349, Dec. 24, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4349, Apr. 23, 201).

2) Determination as to the assertion that no functional control exists or no involvement or intention exists in specific action

A) Defendants 2, 3, and 8

(1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the determination of the direction for responding to the search and seizure by the executive /F, the specific search and seizure activities of the executive /F, etc., the lower court determined that the above Defendants, a member of the /F, can be deemed to have made an essential contribution to the realization of the crime of obstruction of performance of justice through a functional control, and thus, bear the responsibility for the crime of co-principal offense as a co-principal offense, in view of the following: (a) it is recognized that the members of the /F, in relation to the search and seizure by the prosecution, recruited and shared the obstruction of performance of justice in order to prevent the seizure by minimizing the scope of the search and seizure in the course of performing their own duties by minimizing the scope of the relevant department; (b) the nature and role of the executive T/F; (c) the details discussed and decided in T/F

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

Examining the circumstances of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. Therefore, the allegation by Defendants 2, 3, and 8 disputing this is without merit.

On the other hand, Defendant 8 asserted that he was unable to attend the meeting of T/F with frequent outside of the board of directors due to the frequent appearance, and that he did not know the fact of the public offering as above. According to the head of the NIS’s response to the fact inquiry by September 20, 2018, Defendant 8 did not have knowledge of the public offering since he did not attend the meeting of T/F that discussed specific deceptive means. According to the result of the head of the NIS’s response to the fact inquiry by the executive T/F from April 22, 2013 to April 29, 2013, the first day of the public prosecutor’s search and seizure, and returned from 11:00 p.m. to 2:0 p.m. during the day from April 29, 2013. However, Defendant 8’s representative, the role of the representative in the “documents preparation for search and seizure of prosecutor’s won” prepared by the inspector, the executive T/F meeting was not required to respond to Defendant 8’s members of the press.

B) Defendant 4

(1) Whether the search and seizure place was created and the order was given.

(A) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 공소외 16이 2013. 4. 30. 검찰의 압수수색에 대비하여 개조된 심리전단 사무실(■■■■호)에서 공소외 7, 공소외 17, 공소외 6의 자리를 지정하는 등의 행위를 하였고, 이에 관하여 원심 법정에서 ‘피고인 4에게 지시를 받아서 한 것인지 아니면 행정계통을 통해서 문서를 받았는지 정확하게 기억나지 않는다’고 진술하였는데, ① 공소외 16은 피고인 4가 심리전단장으로 부임한 날과 같은 2013. 4. 29. 처음 심리전단 ◆◆◆대응 2처장(팀장)으로 부임한 점, 피고인 4와 공소외 16의 심리전단 부임일 직전인 2013. 4. 27. ~ 4. 28.(주말)의 심리전단 사무실 출입 내역이 상당 부분 일치하는 점(증거목록 순번 1790, 1791, 이하 순번은 증거목록의 순번을 가리킨다), 공소외 16이 부서장인 피고인 4의 지시 또는 승인 없이 독자적으로 위와 같은 행동을 하였을 것으로 보기 어려운 점(부서장을 배제한 별도의 행정계통이 존재한다고 볼 사정도 없다) 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 4가 공식 부임일 전부터 공소외 16과 함께 압수수색에 대비한 준비를 하고 이와 관련된 지시를 공소외 16을 통해 하였을 개연성이 매우 높은바, 간부진 T/F의 결정을 하달 받은 심리전단장 피고인 4가 2013. 4. 27.경부터 4. 29.경 사이에 공소외 15와 공소외 16 등 직원들에게 압수수색 집행에 대비하여 사실은 국정원 심리전단 사건으로 수사기관의 조사를 받은 공소외 7, 공소외 6, 공소외 17이 실제로 사용하지 않던 공간을 마치 그들이 사용하던 공간인 것처럼 칸막이를 설치하는 등 개조한 후 내부에 있던 각종 자료를 모두 치워 ‘공실’로 만들고, 그곳에 책상, 컴퓨터, 캐비닛 등과 함께 기존 ◆◆◆ 활동에 전혀 사용하지 않았던 속칭 ‘깡통’ 노트북 3대를 배치하여 그 장소가 ‘심리전단 사무실 전부’인 것처럼 꾸미도록 지시하였다고 판단하였다.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the appellate court, the above determination by the court below is justified. Accordingly, Defendant 4’s assertion that is disputing this is without merit.

① 공소외 17은 항소심 법정에서 ‘공소외 16이 불필요한 자료는 치울 것은 치우고, 파기할 것은 파기하고, 남겨둘 자료는 남겨놓으라고 하여 직원들이 분주히 움직였다. 집기 배치와 자리 지정을 모두 공소외 16이 지시하였다’고 진술하였다. 공소외 6은 검찰에서 ‘압수수색 전날 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 직원들이 압수수색 대상 사무실을 정리하였는데, 자신이나 공소외 7에게는 특별히 일을 시키지 않고 다른 데 가서 쉬고 있으라고 배려해주었다. 돌아오니 사무실이 깨끗하게 정리되어 있었다’고 진술하였다. 공소외 8도 검찰에서 ’공소외 16 또는 공소외 17의 지시에 따라 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 직원들 전부가 압수수색 전날 서류를 치우는 등 사무실 정리에 투입되어 일을 하였고, 일부 서류를 파쇄하기도 하였다‘고 진술하였다. 위 각 진술내용에 비추어 공소외 16은 자리를 지정해주는 행위 이외에도 직접 혹은 공소외 17을 통하여 압수수색 장소로 정해진 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실(■■■■호)의 공실화, 즉 사무실 내 캐비닛에 있는 서류 일체를 치우라는 등 지시한 사실을 알 수 있는데, 위와 같은 지시를 공소외 16이 단독으로 결정하여 내린 것으로는 도저히 보기 어렵다.

② 피고인 4는 검찰 및 원심 법정에서 ‘심리전단장으로 부임하기 전 2013. 4. 28. 일요일에 공소외 34 3차장이 불러 3차장 사무실로 갔더니 피고인 1과 있었는데, 조만간 압수수색이 있을 것 같으니 심리전단에서 행정적인 지원을 하라는 취지로 말하였다. 2013. 4. 29. 부임하여 오후경 종합행정팀장 공소외 35에게 지시하여 압수수색과 관련하여 기존 6층 회의실을 압수수색하러 오는 검찰 공무원들의 대기실로 만들었다’고 진술하였는데, 피고인 4가 압수수색에 대비하여 대기실을 꾸미는 역할을 하였다면 압수수색 장소인 위 ■■■■호 사무실 조성에도 관여하였을 개연성이 높다.

(2) Whether “a certificate to refuse to submit a document to search and seize” and “a certificate to verify the absence of a thing to be seized” have awareness of the falsity, etc.

(A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the importance of the issue of search and seizure regarding the NIS, the fact that Defendant 4 was the head of the department of the psychological team, which is the relevant department, and the existence and content of the relevant documents cannot be seen as having been difficult to confirm, the lower court determined that Defendant 4 cannot be deemed as having signed only the documents without any awareness, and that there was sufficient awareness that some documents exist and the content thereof is not State secrets, and that Defendant 4 signed the documents.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

㈎ 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사실 내지 사정에 비추어 보면, 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 정당하다고 인정되므로, 이를 다투는 피고인 4의 주장은 이유 없다.

① 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인 4는 공소외 16과 공소외 17을 통하여 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실(■■■■호)의 칸막이 공사, 공실화, 자리 지정이나 집기 배치 등 압수수색 장소를 조성하는 데 관여한 사실이 인정되므로, 그 과정에서 국정원 측에서 미리 선별한 자료만 위 사무실에 비치하여 압수수색에 제공되게 할 것을 인식할 수 있었다.

② Although the list of items, such as the denial of submission of each of the above certificates, and the list of items, such as non-existence, etc., are the same and considerably generally recorded, Defendant 4 did not confirm whether each of the items exists or is State secrets, and did not state the grounds for refusal to submit each of the items. In light of this, Defendant 4’s signature in each of the above certificates in the sense that it does not provide any more materials

㈏ 피고인 3은, 피고인 4가 위 각 확인서에 서명하여 제출한 행위는 피고인 1 등 간부진 T/F 구성원들과 공모하여 이루어진 것으로 볼 수 없다고 주장한다. 그러나 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사실 내지 사정에 비추어, 피고인 4의 위와 같은 행위는 피고인 1 등 간부진 T/F 구성원들이 압수수색에 대비하여 최소한의 자료만 제공하기로 결정하고 이를 미리 선별하여 압수수색 장소로 조성된 위 ■■■■호 사무실에 비치하여 둔 일련의 위계행위의 결과에 해당하므로, 피고인 3의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

① ●●●●국에서 2013. 4. 23. 작성한 ‘검찰의 당원 압수수색 관련 고려사항’ 문건에는 “압수수색 대상은 공개 가능한 범위 내에서 최소한도로 조율하여 자료를 제공한다. 제출 자료는 구 12국 창설·확대 재편 경위 관련 자료로 국한하고, ID도 경찰 조사를 받은 공소외 7·공소외 6 직원 분량으로 제한하며, 이미 공개된 이른바 원장님 지시·강조 말씀은 전량을 압수수색이 실시되는 지정된 사무실에서 제공”이라고 기재되어 있다. 위 문건을 작성한 공소외 27은 원심 법정에서 ‘피고인 2로부터 회의 때 나온 결과를 원장 보고용으로 정리하라는 지시를 받고 위 문건을 작성하였다’고 진술하였고, 피고인 2도 원심 법정에서 ‘간부진 T/F 회의 내용에 대해 보고서 작성을 지시한 사실이 있다’고 진술하였다.

② Defendant 6, etc., prepared on April 28, 2013, indicated “△△△” in the “documents on the examination of the articles subject to seizure related to pending matters” as follows: (a) based on the opinion of the Director General of the Legal Assistant Office on the fact that “the compliance status of the articles subject to seizure related to the pending pending matters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1548, Nov. 29, 2012) is reasonable; (b) the details of responding to the pro rata North Korea; (c) the death of the former President; (d) the criticism of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea; (d) publicity of the public prosecution related to Nonindicted 26 attorneys-at-law; and (e) response to the press report that caused considerable misunderstanding; and (e) the inspection room, based on the fact that the list of items, date, etc. is indicated in the list of the articles subject to seizure and seizure x (e.g., the submission of additional materials within the scope of the materials to be provided.

C) Defendant 6

(1) Whether there was an intentional explanation about the search and seizure place

(A) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 피고인 6이 위 ■■■■호 사무실을 안내하면서 검찰 공무원들에게 ‘이곳이 심리전단 사무실 전부이다. 직원 개인마다 지정된 자리가 있는 것이 아니고 외근 직원들이 사무실에 들어왔을 때 빈자리가 있으면 무작위로 사용하는 형태이며 공소외 7, 공소외 6, 공소외 17의 자리는 위 방에 특정되어 있다’는 취지로 말하였는데, 국정원에 대한 압수수색이라는 절차의 중대성, 피고인 6이 검사 신분이었던 점, 피고인 6이 압수수색 전날 공소외 3과 함께 위 ■■■■호 사무실을 방문한 점 등을 종합하여 보면 피고인 6이 사실 여부에 대한 인식도 없이 국정원 직원들의 말을 그대로 전달만 한 것으로 보기는 어렵고, 적어도 그 내용이 허위임을 미필적으로나마 인식하고 있었다고 볼 수밖에 없다고 판단하였다.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the circumstances found by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, that is, Nonindicted 8 stated in the court of the lower court that “In preparation for the prior search and seizure, it was impossible for the public prosecutor to make a statement, or there was an instruction from the legal assistant to the public prosecutor,” and that Nonindicted 16 stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the public prosecutor did not have a designated position due to the outside of office.” In light of the fact that Defendant 6’s role cannot be deemed to have been in response to the prosecutor’s questioning as notified by the personnel of the psychological leaflet, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. Accordingly, Defendant 6’s assertion disputing this is without merit.”

(2) Whether functional control was over

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, in full view of the following ① facts and circumstances, Defendant 6 could be evaluated as having made an essential contribution to the realization of obstruction of the performance of justice by deceptive means through functional control, by going through functional control, in a successive or implicit manner with the executive members T/F members.

① Since April 22, 2013, Nonindicted 3 participated in T/F as an executive officer from April 22, 2013, Nonindicted 3 participated in this part of the crime. Defendant 6, who was directly present at the meeting of T/F by the senior executive officer, appears to have sufficiently shared the discussions between Nonindicted 3 and TR/F. Defendant 6 also examined the investigation records before the case was sent to the prosecution. Defendant 6 also examined the investigation records before the case was sent to the prosecution, and on April 23, 2013, delivered documents from Nonindicted 37, who was the full-time officer, “Review on the scope of search and seizure related to the suspected political opening of the National Assembly” (the proposal appears to have been prepared by Nonindicted 37 at the request of Defendant 5, who was the chief of the ○○○ Office), and stated that Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 3 participated in the search and seizure of the prosecution team, along with the search and seizure of the prosecution team. Ultimately, Defendant 6 had become aware from the standpoint of the NIS’s activities.

② From April 28, 2013, Defendant 6 participated in T/F meetings of the executive staff, and examined and reported the objects of seizure in preparation for the prosecution’s search and seizure. Although there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 6 was aware of false documents’ aid, Defendant 6 may be deemed to have participated in the process of making a decision on whether to submit the objects of seizure at least the executive staff /F and participated in the process of making a decision on the submission of the objects of seizure.

③ 피고인 6은 압수수색 전날 공소외 3과 함께 압수수색 장소를 방문하였다고 진술하였다. 감찰실에서 작성한 ‘검찰의 압수수색 대비 리허설’, ‘검찰 압수수색 대비 리허설(1차 4. 29)시 강조사항’ 문건에는 피고인 6의 역할이 명시적으로 기재되어 있고, ‘수색대상 사무실 내 캐비닛에 일체 서류·자료 치울 것’, 압수수색 사무실에 처장·과장 및 직원(공소외 7, 공소외 17, 공소외 6) 위치’, ‘압수수색 대상은 구 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 사무실로 한정’ 등의 기재가 되어 있다. 이에 비추어 보면, 피고인 6은 검찰의 압수수색에 대비한 리허설에 직접 참여하였고, 그 과정에서 자신의 역할을 인식하고 자신이 할 행동을 준비하였음을 인정할 수 있다.

④ At the time of search and seizure, Defendant 6 discovered false facts about the prosecutor’s office’s office, etc., and thereby, prevented Defendant 6 from conducting search and seizure of other psychological leaflets offices. Although Defendant 6 was left immediately after he was appointed to the NIS at the time, considering the contents of the documents related to this opinion, the role of Defendant 6, the role of Defendant 6, the procedure for search and seizure of the NIS, and the fact that Defendant 6 was the prosecutor’s status, it is difficult to view Defendant 6 to only deliver the statement of the NIS’s employee without awareness of the fact, and at least, it is difficult to view that the contents thereof were aware of the falsity.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

The lower court’s determination that admitted the content of the above documents as evidence is erroneous, on the grounds that each of the documents, “the Exclusionary Opinion against the Search and Seizure of the Prosecutor’s Office” as cited by the lower court, and “the Exclusionary Opinion against the Prosecutor’s Search and Seizure” was not adopted as evidence against Defendant 6 during the trial of the lower court, and the appellate court did not separately adopt and examine it as evidence.

However, the remaining circumstances of the lower court, excluding the content of each of the above documents, recognize that Defendant 6 had been aware of the substance of the NIS case, and at least during the search and seizure process, it can be recognized that Defendant 6 continued to play a role given in dolusence while recognizing the systematic deceptive scheme of the NIS’s side. Furthermore, it can be sufficiently recognized that Nonindicted 3, etc. participated in the process of preparing for search and seizure by sharing the response direction set by Defendant 7 and the executive members, including Defendant 1, together with Nonindicted 3, etc.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is justified as a result, and the defendant 6's assertion disputing this is without merit.

3) Determination as to the establishment of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

A) Whether specific execution of duties, such as the execution of a search and seizure warrant, exists

(1) The judgment of the court below

On April 29, 2013, the court’s search and seizure warrant issued on April 29, 201 stated to the effect that partial dismissal is “First of all, the pertinent data shall be submitted voluntarily, and only if a custodian or manager of the relevant data refuses it or is unable to achieve the purpose of investigation by the said method, it shall be allowed to execute the warrant.” This is to respect the autonomy of the NIS along with the principle of minimizing compulsory disposition, and to prevent the enforcement of compulsory warrant from significantly impeding the duties of the NIS, which is an intelligence agency.

However, since the method of search and seizure is bound to vary depending on the specific situation, it can be deemed that presenting a search and seizure warrant and arbitrarily submitting data subject to search and seizure from a custodian constitutes execution of a search and seizure warrant in a broad sense. In light of the fact that the execution of duties by a public official subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties is not limited to the forced and power affairs, even if the public official did not obtain possession of an object or search and seizure in a narrow sense that he/she did not follow the body of the person, the act of presenting a search and seizure warrant to the NIS staff and receiving the object of search and seizure constitutes specific execution of duties by a public official.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below’s determination that public officials at the time did not perform the specific duties called the execution of a search and seizure warrant is justifiable. Therefore, the defendants’ assertion that argued this is without merit.

① In accordance with the purport of partial dismissal of the above search and seizure warrant, the public prosecutor’s public official who participated in the search and seizure first presented the search and seizure warrant, and then presented inside the NIS or submitted materials. In light of the fact that the public prosecutor could seize an article voluntarily submitted by the owner, possessor, or custodian without a warrant (see Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the term “voluntary submission” as stated in the above warrant refers to the seizure of materials provided by the NIS rather than the voluntary submission of the original meaning.

② 당시 검찰 공무원들은 국정원 ■■■■호 사무실의 출입문 안쪽 중앙방에서 우측으로 연결된 ‘방3’ 내부에 설치된 캐비닛 7개를 모두 살펴보고, 그 중 1개의 캐비닛 최상단 한 칸에 검정색 파일철 20권이 꽂혀 있어 그 내용을 확인한 바 심리전단 연혁 및 조직개편 자료, 업무매뉴얼, 스마트폰 불용처리 계획 등 업무활동 관련 자료, 원장님 지시·강조 말씀자료, 국내외 주요 카페·커뮤니티·사이트 동향 모니터링 활동 자료들의 사본이 편철되어 있어 이를 압수하였다. 비록 위 문서철은 국정원 측에서 검찰에 제공하기 위하여 미리 준비하여 둔 것이기는 하지만 이는 내부적 사정에 불과하고, 검찰 공무원들은 위 사무실 내부를 수색하는 과정을 거쳐 위 문서철을 발견한 다음 압수하였다.

③ 압수수색영장을 집행하는 검사의 직무집행 내용에는 당연히 압수할 물건을 발견할 목적으로 압수수색영장에 기재된 압수·수색할 장소를 뒤지거나 찾는 ‘수색’도 포함된다. 공소외 8은 원심 법정에서 ‘압수수색 당시 가장 왼쪽 방에 있었는데, 그 방에도 검찰 공무원 두 명이 들어와 수색을 하였으나 압수당한 물건은 없다’는 취지로 진술하였다. 당시 검찰 공무원들은 위 ■■■■호 사무실 외에 2610호도 사무실도 수색하고자 하였고, 전산시설 관리책임자와 면담하여 전산시설이 어디에 있는지, 전산 시스템 구성 및 서버 자료 수색에 협조할 수 있는지 등 여부를 문의하였으나 협조할 수 없다는 답변을 들었으며, 기획조정실, 감찰실 수색과 관련하여서도 국정원 측과 수차례 협의를 진행하였으나 결렬된 것으로 보인다. 결국 검찰 공무원들은 압수수색영장 집행을 개시한 다음 실제로 압수와 수색을 실시하는 데에 필요한 국정원 측 협조를 얻고자 하였으나 실패하였다고 할 것이어서, 이를 두고 압수수색영장 집행에 나아가지 않은 것으로 볼 수는 없다.

B) Whether there was a fraudulent act and mistake, mistake, or mistake of prosecution officials

(1) The judgment of the court below

정보기관인 국정원에 대한 압수수색이라는 특수성, 국정원의 직무상 비밀에 관한 서류는 국정원장의 승낙 없이는 압수할 수 없는 점( 형사소송법 제111조 제1항 ) 등에 비추어 보면 검찰이 국정원에 대한 압수수색영장을 발부받고 집행하는 과정에서 검찰과 국정원 사이에 사전에 압수수색의 범위와 절차 등에 관한 의견 교환 내지 조율은 있었을 것으로 보인다. ●●●●국과 법률보좌관실에서 작성한 각종 보고서들, 공소외 3이 작성한 메모 등에는 검찰과 사전에 압수수색의 장소와 대상 등에 관해 조율을 한다는 취지가 기재되어 있기도 하다.

그러나 실제 압수수색 당시 검찰 공무원들은 심리전단 사무실뿐만 아니라 심리전단 단장실(2610호), 전산시설, 기획조정실 및 감찰실 등에 대해서도 압수수색영장을 집행하려고 시도하였으나 국정원 관계자들과의 협의가 결렬되어 압수수색이 진행되지 못한 점, 감찰실에서 작성한 ‘현안사건 관련 검찰의 국정원 압수수색 결과’ 보고서에도 ‘검찰은 영장에 명시된 장소에 대한 압수수색을 다하지 못하고, 압수물량도 기대보다 적다면서 일부 항의·불만을 토로하였다.’고 기재되어 있는 점, 약속된 장소 1곳에서 압수물을 전달하기로 사전에 조율이 되었다면 ■■■■호의 구조를 변경하고 공소외 7, 공소외 6, 공소외 17이 근무하는 장소를 꾸민 다음 ■■■■호가 심리전단 사무실 전부인 것처럼 설명할 아무런 이유도 없는 점, 국정원의 특수성을 고려하더라도 압수수색이 수사에 필요한 증거자료를 확보하기 위한 강제처분이고 국정원은 그 자료를 보관하는 압수수색의 대상 기관이므로 국정원이 선별한 자료만 제출받는다는 것은 압수수색의 본질과 목적에 반하는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인들이 주장하는 것처럼 국정원과 검찰 사이에 ‘미리 약속된 사무실 1곳(■■■■호)에서 국정원이 선별하여 제출하는 자료만 받아오기로 하는’ 조율 내지 합의가 있었다고 볼 수는 없다.

압수수색 당시 국정원 측은 실제 심리전단 사무실이 여러 곳 있었음에도 칸막이 공사를 실시한 ■■■■호가 심리전단 사무실의 전부인 것처럼 가장하였고, 급조한 서류 3건을 마치 기존에 업무적으로 작성되어 활용되어 온 서류인 것처럼 비치하여 압수되게 하였으며, 국정원 내부에 존재하고 국가기밀에 해당하지 않는 문건임에도 존재하지 않거나 국가기밀이어서 제출할 수 없다는 이유로 그 제출을 거부하였는데 이는 위계에 해당하는 행위이다. 아울러 검찰이 국정원 측의 그러한 행위까지 양해하기로 하는 조율이 있었다고 볼 수 없고 그와 같은 행위를 예측하거나 인식하고 있었다고 볼 수도 없으므로 압수수색을 실시한 검찰 공무원들은 위계로 인하여 오인·착각·부지에 빠진 것으로 충분히 평가할 수 있다.

한편, 압수수색을 마친 후 ■■■■호에 대한 압수수색에 참여한 검사 및 검찰수사관이 작성한 수사보고[압수수색영장 집행 상황 및 결과 보고(심리전단사무실)]에 ‘본건 압수수색에 대비하여 검찰에 제공할 자료를 미리 준비한 것으로 보임’, ‘압수수색에 대비하여 공소외 7, 공소외 17, 공소외 6이 평소 사용한 책상처럼 가장한 것으로 보이고 나아가 ■■■■호 전체가 본건 압수수색에 대비하여 심리전단 사무실로 조성한 공간일 가능성도 배제할 수 없음’, ‘공소외 6 등의 사무실이라고 하는 공간(방3)의 책상들은 압수수색을 대비하여 만들어 놓은 자리일 가능성이 있음’이라는 기재가 있기는 하지만, 이는 검찰 공무원의 현장에서 또는 수사보고 작성 당시의 의심을 기재한 것일 뿐 이를 근거로 검찰 공무원들이 국정원 측의 위계 내용을 인식하고 오인·착각·부지에 빠지지 않았다고 볼 수는 없다.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

Examining the circumstances of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion disputing this is without merit.

C) Whether the performance of duties was hindered due to fraudulent means

(1) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 검찰 공무원들이 ■■■■호가 심리전단 사무실의 전부라고 전달받고 다른 심리전단 사무실의 존재에 대하여 알지 못하여 압수수색 집행 자체에 나아가지 못하였고, 급조된 서류 3건을 기존에 업무적으로 작성되어 활용되어 온 서류로 오인하여 압수하였으며, 압수수색 대상 문건이 존재하지 않거나 국가기밀에 해당한다고 오인하여 압수수색을 하지 못하여, 결국 국정원 측의 위계에 의하여 압수수색영장에 압수대상으로 기재되어 있고, 압수수색을 할 수 있었던 장소와 물건에 대하여 압수수색을 하지 못한 것이므로 공무원의 구체적이고 현실적인 직무집행 방해의 결과가 발생하였다고 판단하였다.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

(A) Relevant legal principles

In investigating a criminal case, an investigative agency has official authority and duties to determine a suspect regardless of the statement of a suspect or witness and collect and investigate all objective evidence to recognize the suspected fact. Meanwhile, a suspect has the right to refuse to make a statement and the right to make a statement favorable to himself/herself and does not have an obligation to make a statement to an investigative agency only once it is true, since the suspect, etc. did not have any duty to make a statement to the investigation agency, if the investigative agency made a false statement or concealed evidence necessary for the acknowledgement of the suspected fact and submitted a false evidence, and if the investigative agency completed the collection and investigation of evidence only with such false statement and evidence without sufficient investigation by the investigative agency, it cannot be deemed as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means as it is insufficient investigation by the suspect, etc. However, if the suspect, etc. actively submits a false evidence to the investigative agency to the extent that it is impossible to discover that evidence was submitted in good faith as a result of the investigation agency’s manipulation of evidence, this constitutes a crime of obstruction of execution of official duties by deceptive means, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10.).

(B) Specific determination

Examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and the Defendants’ assertion disputing such determination is without merit.

(1) In light of the unique characteristics of the NIS, if the NIS commits fraudulent means, such as hiding evidence in the course of search and seizure and submitting false evidence, it is difficult for the investigative agency to secure evidence by any other means.

② 당시 압수수색에 참여한 검찰 공무원들은 심리전단 사무실과 전산시설, 기획조정실 및 감찰실을 압수수색할 팀으로 나뉘어 최대한 넓은 범위의 압수수색을 하고자 시도하였고, 원본 자료를 요청하여 원본과 비닉처리 후 제공된 사본을 비교하였으며, 다른 사무실에 대한 접근 및 추가 자료 제공을 요청하기 위하여 밤늦게까지 국정원 내부에서 대치하였고, 압수수색 장소에 있던 국정원 심리전단 직원들에게 정확한 심리전단 사무실 현황 등을 파악하기 위하여 계속하여 질문하기도 하였다. 압수수색이 국정원 본청 건물 내에서 이루어졌고 압수수색의 모든 과정을 국정원이 철저하게 통제한 주2) 점 에 비추어 압수수색에 참여한 검찰 공무원들이 강제적인 수단을 사용하여 압수수색영장을 집행할 수 있었을 것으로 기대하기는 어려웠다. 심리전단장인 피고인 4가 ‘검찰이 요구하는 각 물건은 이미 폐기되어 존재하지 아니하거나 국가기밀이어서 제출할 수 없다’는 취지가 기재된 ‘압수수색할 물건 제출 거부 확인서’ 등을 제출하는 상황에서 위 확인서에 기재된 개별 자료가 실제로 국가기밀에 해당하거나 국정원 내에 존재하는지 여부에 대하여 재차 확인을 거치거나, 위 ■■■■호 사무실에 비치된 자료 중 압수수색에 대비하여 급조된 서류를 구별할 방법이 있었음에도 검찰 공무원들이 이를 게을리 한 것으로 보기도 어렵다. 이에 비추어 당시 검찰 공무원들은 나름대로 충실한 수사를 하였으나 국정원 측의 적극적인 위계에 의하여 압수수색영장에 압수대상으로 기재되어 있고, 압수수색을 할 수 있었던 장소와 물건에 대하여 압수수색을 하지 못하였음을 알 수 있다.

C. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8’s violation of the National Intelligence Service Act relating to the measure to protect the non-affiliated.

1) Whether an employee of the NIS may become the other party to the crime of abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act

A) The judgment of the court below

Article 11(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act provides that “The Director, Deputy Director, and other employees shall not arrest or detain persons without following legal procedures, allow other institutions, organizations, or persons to perform an act that does not have any duty, or interfere with the exercise of their rights.”

Since the NIS itself cannot become the other party to abuse of authority, the term “other institution or organization” shall be construed to mean an institution or organization that is not a State Council member. However, in itself, the language and text of the above provision cannot be interpreted to mean that “other” not only an institution or organization but also a person. Furthermore, considering the characteristics and characteristics of the NIS’s duties, the above provision appears to have its purport to include the other party to abuse of authority in an institution or organization, and does not seem to have limited the scope of “person”.

In interpreting the Act, a systematic and logical interpretation method may be used taking into account the legislative intent and purpose, history of enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, and relationship with other Acts and subordinate statutes. There is no reasonable ground to exclude “personnel of the National Intelligence Service” from “person” under the aforementioned provision. In particular, the crime of abuse of authority under the Criminal Act provides that the other party to the abuse of authority is “person”, where the president, Deputy Director, and other employees abuse their authority and make the other party to perform an act for which he/she is not obligated, there is no reasonable ground to evaluate differently between the NIS employee and the other party to the form of obstructing exercise of rights, and the other party to the form of obstructing exercise of rights under the same provision provides that “person” shall be construed as “person” in the same way as the crime of abuse of authority under the Criminal Act.

B) Judgment of the appellate court

Article 124(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act provides that the punishment of abuse of authority is aggravated compared to the crime of abuse of authority under the Criminal Act. The purpose of the Criminal Act is to strictly prohibit an individual’s fundamental human rights by an employee of the National Security Planning Department in the past because of the enemy’s personal rights being involved in an illegal investigation. The Criminal Act separate provisions from the punishment of imprisonment for not more than seven years and suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years if a person who arrests or confiness another by abusing his official authority (see Article 124(1) of the Criminal Act). On the other hand, the crime of abuse of authority under the National Intelligence Service Act includes the act of arresting or detaining a person without following legal procedures by abusing official authority, and thus it is reasonable in terms of dealing with the balance between the above provisions and statutory punishment. Since the NIS’s act of abuse of authority is unreasonable, there is no possibility that the above act of abuse of authority against the employee under the Criminal Act, the crime of insurrection, foreign aggression, the crime of unlawful use of military secrets, the crime of abuse of authority against the National Security Act, and its authority to protect the State.

2) Whether it constitutes an act without obligation

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined as follows: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances, the review of the security of the NIS inspector’s office is stipulated in the Acts and subordinate statutes and the criteria and procedures for the performance of duties are stipulated in the inspection room’s employees, and the duties assigned to the inspection room employees who are working-level employees with the inherent authority and role to apply the standards and procedures for the performance of duties and participate in the procedures; and (b) thus, the inspection room’s employees constituted “when they

① solely on the ground that the final approval authority for the review of security belongs to the head of the ○○○ Office, the duties of the inspector’s office employees cannot be deemed as a mere mechanical assistant. Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5 stated in the lower court that partial review of security is carried out by the head of the Security Department, which means that the employees of the inspector’s office, other than the head of the ○○ Office, are granted the inherent authority and role in the review of security.

② Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 5, an inspector of the inspection room, stated in the lower court’s court to the effect that Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 5, among the documents taken out outside in accordance with the standards and procedures prescribed by Article 6 of the National Intelligence Service Act and the regulations on security affairs within the NIS, they perform the duties necessary for the national security. In light of the status of Nonindicted 4, who is the director of the inspection room leader of the inspection room, he cannot be deemed to have performed only the mechanical assistant as the mere assistant of the head of the inspection room. The examination of the actual security nature does not mean that the employee of the inspection room performed his duties in the manner of final approval by the head of the ○○ office, etc., and only did the employee of the inspection room handle the parts individually directed by the head of ○○ office.

B) Judgment of the appellate court

(1) Relevant legal principles

In the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights under Article 123 of the Criminal Act, the term “when one has another person perform a non-obligatory act” means when one has another person perform a non-obligatory act. Therefore, even if a public official had a person in charge of business to assist the performance of his/her duties with respect to matters belonging to his/her official authority, this is only a result of the public official’s performance of duties, and thus, cannot be deemed to constitute “when one has another perform a non-obligatory act” as stated in the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights. However, if the standard and procedure for performing his/her duties specifically stated in the statutes and the person in charge of business has been given a unique authority and role to apply the standards and procedure for performing his/her duties to the person in charge of business in violation of such standards and procedure, it constitutes “when one has another person assist the performance of duties” (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1376

(2) Specific determination

Examining the following facts and circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if Defendant 5, who is the head of ○○○○ Office, conspired with Defendant 1 and other executives T/F members, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Nonindicted 3 in sequential order, and ordered the inspection room employees, including Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 5, to take measures for the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act against the former president of the State Administration and the former president of the NIS, the inspection team, etc., to leave the room for non-disclosure, such act does not constitute a case where the inspection room employees, such as Nonindicted 4, etc. had the inspection team employees perform non-obligatory acts. Therefore, the court below’s aforementioned determination of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles, so long as it is deemed that the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion against this issue does not constitute a case where the said Defendants’ assertion does not constitute a case where a person was forced to perform a non-obligatory act by abusing official authority under the National Intelligence Service Act.

① Nonindicted 4 stated in the court of the court below that “Although the provisions on security duties within the National Intelligence Service do not specifically stipulate the substantive requirements for the handling of non-permanents, it is not voluntary to establish the standards and handle non-permanents about the number of persons, etc. in accordance with Article 6 of the National Intelligence Service Act and the above provisions.” Nonindicted 39 also stated in the court of the court below that “Although the regulations on security duties within the National Assembly capacity specifically provide for the substantive requirements of non-permanent treatment or specify the documents subject to non-disclosure, it is the security review of the inspection room that performing non-permanent treatment of the matters listed in Article 6 of the National Intelligence Service Act is an inspection room’s duty, it appears that the primary object of the examination of security nature, such as non-permanent treatment, etc., falls under this category. However, Nonindicted 4’s primary object of the examination is that “in addition, it is deemed that there is no need for another department’s business affairs,” Nonindicted 5’s main object of the inspection room’s inspection room’s duty is included in the purport to the effect that “non non-public matters.”

(2) According to the results of the NIS's inquiry and response to the fact-finding on March 22, 2018, Article 19 of the Regulations on Security Management, which is the internal rules of the NIS, provides that the head of each department shall obtain permission from the head of the relevant department when an employee discloses matters related to his/her duties to the public (Article 19). The head of each department shall seek opinions from the relevant department prior to his/her permission to the head of the relevant department so that security matters are not included. The head of each department shall request the head of the ○○ Office to review security (Article 2) after deliberation by the self-security Review Committee (Article 2). However, the NIS only submits the provisions related to the publication of the above external documents on the grounds that it is difficult for the NIS to submit the internal documents stating the details necessary for the NIS's security affairs under the Regulations on Security Management to the effect that it is difficult for the NIS to submit the standards and procedures for the performance of duties to the inspector who is a person in charge of the duties.

③ In full view of the statements made by employees of the inspection room and the contents of the above provisions, the examination of the security nature is deemed to have been conducted uniformly without any external pressure, such as the NIS’s organization, location and number of its employees, and the contents of confidential work, or information obtained in the course of performing its duties, so as not to be disclosed to the public. In light of the purpose, contents, nature, and characteristics of the security review as above, the examination of the security nature of the NIS’s employees ought to be conducted uniformly under the responsibilities and discretion of the head of the office of direct control of the NIS. Therefore, in the case of the above precedents (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13766) regarding the examination of the security nature of employees of the inspection room, such examination of the security nature cannot be evaluated as having the same kind of work that a public official, who has been assigned a unique authority and role in accordance with the standards and procedures as

④ In this part of the facts charged also, at the meeting of T/F, Defendant 5’s executive members set forth the part of the measure to sponse documents, such as a recording, with other members and recorded records, and had Defendant 6 conduct an interim review, and repeated the procedure to designate the subject of the measure to sponse during several times, such as designating the subject of the measure to sponse at the meeting of the executive members and then designating the subject of the measure to sponse. As seen above, the inspector instructed the employees of the inspection office to take the measure to sponse. As such, this part of the facts charged is that “The politically sensitive part as a result of the meeting of T/F, which was discussed to sponse the subject of the measure to sponse.” The inspector’s statement made at the prosecutor’s office (Evidence No. 399, 7200, 7204 of the evidence record).

⑤ In addition, even based on the statements made by Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 5, there is no objective data to recognize that the matters subject to the prior decision by the Chief are unclear and that there is no objective data to recognize this. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the inspection room employees have unique authority and role in the review of security.

(6) Ultimately, the security review constitutes the authority and authority of Defendant 5, who is the head of the ○○○ Office, and the head of the inspection room’s guidance and its employees were determined to substitute the fact that the inspection room’s instruction and employees are merely a person in charge of the affairs as a practical agent in accordance with

D. The Defendants’ perjury.

1) The Defendants’ public invitation relationship

A) Whether Defendant 7’s instruction was given

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that Defendant 7’s response devices set up in T/F and specific activities to cope with the trial by Defendant 7’s comprehensive instructions, on the grounds that Defendant 7 directly ordered Defendant 1 to organize and operate T/F and that Defendant 7 did not appear to have engaged in activities to cope with the trial contrary to Defendant 7’s instructions.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

Defendant 7 instructed Defendant 1 to act by organizing T/F for the purpose of comprehensively responding to the investigation and trial of the NIS case. As seen earlier, Defendant 7’s nature of the above case as provided by Defendant 7 and the contents of its basic response direction, and Defendant 7’s “report on the progress of trial” in a direct or indirect manner, etc., the above judgment of the court below is justifiable, and Defendant 7’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

B) Whether the executive members T/F members and Defendant 6 conspired to give rise to perjury

(1) Establishment of response measures concerning the investigation and trial of the NIS case

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, according to the report prepared by Defendant 6 directly or through a legal assistant room or an attorney-at-law belonging to T/F on the investigation and trial of the case by Defendant 1 and other executive members, the response team established by the executive members in relation to the investigation of and trial for the case by the executive members of the NIS was the personal deviation of some employees who occurred during the legitimate national security activities, and that, to the maximum extent extent possible, such as the systematic political intervention and election intervention of the NIS, and that the scope of investigation was prevented by the external team, etc.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, that is, Nonindicted 3’s attendance at the first executive /F meeting on April 22, 2013, which was prepared in the Nompt, the lower court’s determination was justifiable in its entirety as to Nonindicted 14’s investigation response team leader, around April 26, 2013, and Nonindicted 1’s statement and statement to the effect that it was necessary to maintain the level of “Defendant 4’s testimony and statement to the outside party of the instant pending case,” and that Nonindicted 4’s statement and statement to the effect that Nonindicted 3’s testimony was prepared in response to Nonindicted 3’s investigation to maintain the level of “the organization and statement to the third party of the instant pending case,” around May 8, 2013, the content and form of “documents to respond to the pending issue,” including Defendant 1’s statement and statement to the effect that it was not necessary for Defendant 1’s organization and statement to the outside party of the instant case’s political activity.

(2) Invitation of a perjury teacher

(A) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the contents of the report on the progress of each trial prepared by the legal assistant office or working-level T/F are continuously organized and stated in this part of the facts charged regarding the issue related to the status of the staff members of the NIS, the method of delivering arguments, the nature of the pro and the external cooperative issues, etc., and that the report or instruction was not made or given to the president or senior executives in connection with the pro and cons activities between the staff members of the NIS, and that the simple experimental activities without any intention of political intervention or election opening cannot be personally maintained the position that those activities are imminent during the election period (the fourth trial progress report). The court below held that, in addition to the contents of the report on the progress of each trial by the staff members of the NIS, the purpose of having the staff members of the NIS make corrections to the erroneous statement at the prosecutor’s office (the seventh trial progress report on the progress of the trial proceeding), the court below stated that it is necessary to have the staff members of the NIS report on the progress of the trial proceedings or the outcome of the aforementioned order to respond to the aforementioned portion of the court proceedings or the proceedings.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is just that the court below determined that Defendant 6 et al. conspiredd with the members of T/F and the relevant executive members of T/F while reporting the plan that Defendant 6 et al. would have the executive staff to give testimony in the court in accordance with the response principles of T/F and the result thereof to T/F, and that Defendant 1 et al. conspired to give testimony to the executive staff. The arguments by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, and Defendant 8 are without merit.

① On April 26, 2013, the legal assistant office prepared the document “the result of the investigation by the head of the pre-trial group related to the pending pending case,” which, around April 25, 2013, Nonindicted 14 stated that Nonindicted 14 was the document that was first investigated in the status of the suspect in the NIS’s case. Nonindicted 14 stated in the prosecutor’s office that “In compliance with the contact with the legal assistant office, Nonindicted 6 met with Defendant and was investigated by the prosecutor.”

② As to the overall atmosphere of the investigation, the aforementioned documents include an evaluation that “the content of the prosecutor’s examination and the content of the answers given by the head of the former group was conducted in accordance with the expected and prepared contents at the NIS.” In fact, comparing the contents of the aforementioned “report on response” and “the result of the investigation” documents, Nonindicted 14 may confirm that Nonindicted 14 had been investigated by the prosecutor according to the response programs set by the NIS.

③ 한편, 위 ‘대응기조 보고’에는 ‘현재까지 확인된 민 전 심리전단장 답변기조 -“원장으로부터 직접, 또는 3차장을 통해 ◆◆◆심리전 지시를 받았다”는 점을 명확히 할 것임 -어떠한 경우에도 하위 직원은 보호할 생각임’이라고 기재되어 있어, 법률보좌관실 등에서 위 대응기조를 마련하기 위해 공소외 14가 검찰에서 어떠한 기조로 조사를 받을지 사전에 파악한 사실도 드러난다.

④ In preparation for the first prosecutor’s investigation by Nonindicted 14, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 14’s forecast questions and answers thereto were determined by the prosecutor’s office, and furthermore, documents prepared by Nonindicted 14 to organize the actual results of Nonindicted 14’s prosecutor’s statement in the legal assistant office was prepared in order to report the above report to T/F, it is reasonable to deem that the documents “the results of the investigation by the head of the previous prosecutor’s office related to the pending pending case” as the result thereof were also reported to T/F.

2) Whether there was a specific and individual commission of perjury

A) Nonindicted 6

(1) The portion of perjury that “A” was received verbally.

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court, on September 23, 2013, ordered Nonindicted 6 to the effect that Nonindicted 17, who conspired in sequence with the executives T/F members, including Defendant 1, should give testimony to Nonindicted 6 as Nonindicted 1’s verbal receipt in accordance with the response mechanism by the executives T/F, and determined that Nonindicted 6 appeared as a witness of the case, such as the violation of the NISA against Nonindicted 2 on September 23, 2013, and made a false statement as if he/she was verbally verbally made a false statement, thereby constituting perjury against his/her memory.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the appellate court, the lower court’s determination that Nonindicted 17 instructed Nonindicted 6 to give an instruction on the method of delivery of “cin and debate” according to the response mechanism drawn up by the executive members T/F, who followed the series of public subscriptions by Defendant 1 and the members of T/F, Defendant 6, and the response mechanism drawn up by the executive members T/F is justifiable, and the allegation by Defendant 6 disputing this is without

① 공소외 17은 항소심 법정에서 ‘공소외 14가 검찰이나 경찰 조사 가기 전에 불러서 ’이슈 및 논지‘는 이야기하지 말고 구두나 쪽지로 받아서 전달하였다고 하라고 해서, 공소외 6과 공소외 7에게 국장님이 이렇게 지시하신다고 전달한 적이 있다’고 진술하였다. 실제로 공소외 6은 2013. 5. 3. 검찰 조사에서 ‘상부에서 주제가 선정되고 그에 관하여 게시할 글의 취지까지 정해져 지시가 내려오는데, 매일 지시사항이 있는 것은 아니다. 전부서장회의 때 원장님 지시사항이 있고, 이하 국장, 처장 주재회의를 거쳐 과장(파트장)을 통해 전달 받는다. 한 번 하달되면 새로운 지시가 있기까지 그에 따라 지속적으로 글을 올린다’고 하여 부정기적으로 지휘계통에 따라 구두로 지시사항을 전달 받는 것처럼 진술하였고, 비슷한 시기에 검찰에 소환된 공소외 7과 공소외 17도 ◆◆◆ 활동의 지침이 지휘계통을 따라 구두로 전해지는 것처럼 진술하거나 매일 내부망 이메일을 통하여 심리전단 직원들에게 전파되는 사실을 진술하지 주5) 않았다. 이에 비추어 공소외 6은 공소외 17로부터 위와 같은 공소외 14의 지시사항을 듣고 검찰에서 ‘이슈 및 논지’의 전달 방법에 관하여 허위 진술을 한 것으로 보인다.

② On September 23, 2013, around four months from May 2013, Nonindicted 6 appeared and taken an oath against Nonindicted 2 as a witness of the National Intelligence Service Act violation case against Nonindicted 2, etc., Nonindicted 6 made a false statement to the effect that he did not receive “in writing,” and that he did not read it even after having received the suspicion in writing. Nonindicted 6 made a false statement to the effect that he was given a witness summons notice and reported it to Nonindicted 17 on September 12, 2013 at the prosecutor’s office and reported it to Nonindicted 6, which was later sent only verbally and verbally.

③ According to the aforementioned “the results of the investigation by the chief of the previous deliberation group related to the pending issue” (see April 26, 2013), Nonindicted 14 asked at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that Nonindicted 14 would know well about the newspaper related to the “fence venue” (the so-called “work instruction, etc. posted in the Lao News”). As to the above documents, it appears that it is necessary to refer to the following matters in the response team of the employees who will be examined in the future: (i) whether there is a so-called “fence venue”; (ii) whether there is a need to consult about the contents of the employee’s statement before the investigation; and (iii) in the case of “documents related to the use of “the three vice chief of the previous deliberation group related to the pending issue” (see April 26, 2013)”, it appears that the public prosecutor’s statement and response in the direction that it would not be known that the information was delivered from the hearing team in the direction of three vice chief of the prosecutor’s office.”

④ Of the documents regarding “the countermeasures against the first witness examination of the original staff member,” Nonindicted 6 stated that “whether he/she was instructed by the Director-General, the third Director-General, or the Director-General to present specific contents of a notice: If he/she presented a large subject, the detailed contents reflecting it shall be prepared on his/her own, or individually.” Defendant 6, who prepared the above documents, asserts that it is merely a reorganization of the contents of Nonindicted 6’s statement arranged in the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 6 to the prosecutor’s suspect examination of Nonindicted 6. However, Nonindicted 6 did not state that “all the subjects are determined at the meeting of the Director-General or the Director-General, and are carried out by the specific purport,” in the prosecutor’s investigation on May 3, 2013, he/she did not state to the effect that he/she independently set up the detailed contents

⑤ ‘원 댓글사건 제5회 공판진행상황 보고(2013. 9. 24.)’ 문건에는 “공소외 6 직원 또한 ▲심리전단의 이른바 댓글 활동은 방어심리전 차원의 활동이었음, ▲원장 지시·강조말씀을 구체적 업무지시로 받아들이지는 않았음 등으로 검찰 진술을 대체로 유지”라고 기재되어 있어, 구체적으로 ‘이슈 및 논지’의 전달 방식에 관하여 어떤 내용으로 진술하였는지 정리되어 있지는 않으나, 이는 공소외 6이 검찰에서 이메일이나 서면으로 받았다는 등의 진술을 하지 않았기 때문으로 여전히 원장 지시·강조말씀이 구체적인 업무방침이 되지는 않았다는 진술 내용에 초점이 맞춰져 있다.

6) Documents that Defendant 6 appears to have sent Nonindicted 17 to prepare for Nonindicted 17’s examination of the witness (the order 1670) appear to have been adjusted in advance for the purpose of reducing the case of the NIS testimony or revealing substance. In addition, Defendant 6 testified that the so-called comments made fall under only 20% of his business, and how it is good to reduce the proportion of so-called comments in the hearing leaflet’s business so as to make it possible to reduce the proportion of the so-called comments in the hearing leaflet’s business? In addition, it appears that it is difficult for Defendant 6 to personally use without the direction of the hearing leaflet. In light of the fact that it is inconsistent with the existing guidelines, it appears that it is difficult for the Director-General to prepare a response theory, and that it is different from the contents of the statement made by Defendant 6 to Defendant 5 in advance for the purpose of regulating the contents of the statement made by the Director-General or the Director-General in light of the contents of the testimony made by Defendant 1 to Defendant 7.

(2) The portion of perjury that personally performed the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the activity

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court: (a) instructed Defendant 6, while having directly interviewed Nonindicted 6, that “the person must testify as if he had done his personal activity”; and accordingly, determined that Nonindicted 6 did not perform pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and he did not act on the Internet website systematically, but made a false statement as if he had been aware of his activities and made a false representation as to his memory.

(B) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the appellate court, Defendant 6 may be recognized as having instructed Nonindicted 6 to testify that he/she personally engaged in pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and against the pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and the pro and pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro

① around September 23, 2013, Nonindicted 6 appeared as a witness of the instant case, such as violation of the National Intelligence Service Act against Nonindicted 2, and stated to the effect that “Nonindicted 17 continued to appear,” and Nonindicted 6’s instruction to monitor pro and pro and pro and pro and cons, but there is no little doubt on what they should agree and oppose.” Nonindicted 6 reported pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and the same topic to Nonindicted 17 at the same time. Nonindicted 6 stated that Nonindicted 1’s testimony was not a pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and were not shared at the same time by the prosecutor’s office on the same issue.” In addition, Nonindicted 6 stated that Nonindicted 1’s testimony was not a pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and the content of his pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and the content of his testimony at the same time.

② ‘원 댓글사건 제4회 공판진행상황 보고(2013. 9. 17.)’에는 “-공소외 17, 공소외 7, 공소외 6 직원간 찬·반 클릭 활동과 관련하여 ① 원장 또는 상급 간부에게 보고하거나, 지시받은 바 없음, ② 정치개입, 선거개입 의도가 전혀 없었으며 단순한 실험적 활동이었고, 선거기간에 임박한 찬반클릭 활동은 각자 모니터링 중 개인적으로 한 것에 불과하다는 입장을 일관되게 견지할 필요”라고 기재되어 있다. 그런데 공소외 17은 2013. 5. 6. 제2회 검찰 조사에서 ’찬반클릭은 지시를 받거나 보고하지 않고 파트 차원에서 임의로 한 것이다. 파트원들이 테스트 차원에서 하나의 게시글에 집중적으로 찬성과 반대를 몰아서 클릭한 경우도 있었지만 여론에 영향을 미치는 효과가 전혀 없었고, 대선이 임박한 2012. 11. 이후에는 의도적인 베스트 행 저지를 위한 집중 반대클릭을 더더욱 하지 않았다. 종북세력 추출 방편으로 활용한 것이지, 정치적 의도나 선거에 관여할 의도가 없었다. 만일 그러한 의도가 있었다면 2012. 11., 12.에도 공소외 24 후보를 지지하는 글에 4회 이상 무차별적으로 반대클릭을 하여 베스트게시판 행을 막았을 것이다‘는 취지로 진술하였는바, 공소외 17이 항소심 법정에서 피고인 6이 법률보좌관실에서 공소외 6, 공소외 7, 공소외 17을 면담할 당시 공소외 17에게는 진술을 잘 하였다고 칭찬하였다는 취지로 진술한 점에 비추어 보면, 공소외 17의 위 제2회 검찰 진술 내용을 바탕으로 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 5파트의 찬반클릭 활동에 관한 증인신문 대응방향이 세워진 것으로 짐작된다.

B) Nonindicted 7

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court: (a) instructed Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 17 to not make a concrete statement on the method of delivery of “Ack and debate” while meeting Nonindicted 7 directly, in accordance with the response mechanism by Defendant 1 and the executive staff members T/F; (b) on September 23, 2013, Nonindicted 7 appeared as a witness of the instant case, such as violation of the NISA against Nonindicted 2, etc.; and (c) determined that the instant case was basically proven in violation of his/her memory by making a false statement as diverse methods of delivery of “the other party” and “the other party’s argument.”

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the appellate court, it is not sufficient to recognize the facts that Defendant 6 directly instructed Nonindicted 7 by the prosecution alone, but it is not sufficient to recognize the facts that Defendant 6 was ordered by the prosecution. However, Nonindicted 7 instructed Nonindicted 17, who conspired in sequence with the executive members / F members, including Defendant 1, to the effect that “ Schlage and debate” should be testified as a verbal receipt in accordance with the response mechanism of the executive members T/F, and it can be recognized that Nonindicted 7 was an perjury. Accordingly, Defendant 6’s assertion disputing this issue is without merit.

① Nonindicted 7 testified in the lower court’s court’s testimony to the effect that Nonindicted 7 was made by verbally or otherwise diverse methods, on the following grounds: (a) it was the same as Nonindicted 7’s instruction to not specifically state his/her delivery method of “A nor I am involved in the matter of time and subject of direction; and (b) Nonindicted 7 testified to the effect that he/she was given her testimony to the effect that he/she was given her away to how to communicate the issue and subject of direction within the NIS after being investigated by the prosecution.

② The document “the fifth trial progress report on the instant case’s fifth trial proceeding ( September 24, 2013)” states that Nonindicted 7’s employees were sent to Nonindicted 7 through a strike on the issue and response issues, and it is impossible to find out how individual response discussions were selected. Nonindicted 7 testified with Nonindicted 6 on the same day as Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 6 made a statement to Nonindicted 17, who had been present with Nonindicted 7 as a witness, followed Nonindicted 6’s instructions on the method of delivery of “the instant case and the instant argument.” Nonindicted 17 instructed Nonindicted 7 to make a false statement before the prosecution’s investigation, and instructed Nonindicted 7 to make a false statement in the prosecutor’s office.

C) Nonindicted 8

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that: (a) on October 7, 2013, Nonindicted 8 appeared as a witness of the case, such as violation of the National Intelligence Service Act by Nonindicted 2 against Nonindicted 1, 2013; (b) made a false statement that Nonindicted 17, who conspired with Defendant 1 and other executives T/F members, and Defendant 6, made a false statement that Nonindicted 8 did not have any supporting or opposing character in writing; and (c) made a false statement as if there was no co-ownership with other members of the Republic of Korea, that the said pro and pro and pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and cons were given a false statement that Nonindicted 8 did not have any pro and the pro and cons

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant 6's assertion disputing this is without merit.

① Nonindicted 8 appeared as a witness of the above case, and the following facts were contained in the content that “Isday issue and response issue” was used for each issue. As such, Nonindicted 8 did not know about how much the character was correctly reduced, and did not receive a written instruction from Nonindicted 17, the so-called “Isday issue”, and did not personally select the character, and did not consult with the other members of the so-called “Isday, Isday,” and did not share the character that Isday or dynasium with the word “Isday, Isday, Isday, Isday, Is, and Is the character that Isday or Isday, and did not know that Isday or Isday, but did not know that Isday or Isday that Isday or Isday's testimony, but did not know that Isday or Isday, I would like to know that I would like to know that Isday or Isday that I would not know that I would like to know that Isday.

② As above, Nonindicted 8 consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court below that it was perjuryed with Nonindicted 17’s instruction, and that “it was the atmosphere where punishment would have been imposed if he had come to know of his superior’s instructions at the time. Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 10 were given such instructions, and thus, they could not be refused only on their own, because they could not refuse to refuse to comply with the order of his superior’s instructions,” or that “ Nonindicted 8 was educated upon being presented the prosecutor’s investigation by the staff of the NIS prior to the legal testimony and

③ 공소외 8에 대하여는 법률보좌관실에서 작성한 ‘원 댓글사건 제7회 공판진행상황 보고(2013. 10. 8.)’ 문건에 “- 공소외 8 직원은 시설관리 분야에 주로 근무하다가 심리전단에는 6개월 정도 단기간 근무한 관계로 대부분의 신문에 ‘잘 모른다’, ‘기억이 나지 않는다’는 취지로 증언, - 공소외 8 직원은 검찰 조사 당시 다소 문제될 만한 진술을 한 바 있으나, 증언에서는 ‘추후 알아보니 해당 사안과 관련된 북한의 선전·선동이 있었다’, ‘종북세력의 선전·선동에 대응하라는 취지의 지시로 이해했다’는 등으로 바로잡음”이라고 기재되어 있는 외에 증인신문 대응방안이나 예상신문사항이 이 사건에 증거로 제출된 바 없으나, 앞서 보았듯이 ▲▲▲▲ 3팀 5파트에서 찬반클릭을 개인적으로 하였는지 여부가 국정원 직원들에게 증언 방향을 교육·지시함에 있어 주요한 사항이었으므로, 이와 같은 대응기조의 내용에 따라 공소외 17이 공소외 8에게 ‘이슈 및 논지’, ‘찬반클릭 활동’에 관한 허위 진술을 지시한 것으로 봄이 타당하다.

D) Nonindicted 9

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, on December 9, 2013, Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 15 appeared as witness of Nonindicted 2’s National Intelligence Service violation of the NISA, etc. and made a false statement as if they were verbally delivered, and thereby, Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 15 stated that “A” was sent to Nonindicted 9 as an internal electronic mail device, and instructed Nonindicted 9 to give testimony and correct it, and that Nonindicted 9 was in violation of his memory by ordering Nonindicted 9 to make a true testimony as to the method of delivery of “A”.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant 4's assertion disputing this is without merit.

① On October 17, 2013, Non-Indicted 9 stated in the first prosecutor’s investigation that “this issue is sent by internal e-mail each day. There are several issues, and the main direction of response and arguments to the degree of two to three different issues are written.” On November 7, 2013, Non-Indicted 9 recognized 20 out of the 24 Twitter accounts presented by the prosecutor. On November 7, 2013, Non-Indicted 9 stated that one of the four Twitter accounts that were denied was additionally admitted, and that one of the said four Twitter accounts was placed in the said Twitter account, and that the two Twitter accounts were placed in the said Twitter account. The above 21 account was made after March 2013, where Twitter team deleted the Twitter account.” On the other hand, Non-Indicted 9 stated to the effect that the two Twitter account was used for business purposes, and that the two Twitter account was used for more than one of the two Twitter accounts.

② Nonindicted 9, at the prosecutor’s office around the first emergency arrest and prosecutor’s office, reported to Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 15, including the fact that she was transmitted to Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 15 and the fact that she was using twitter account, and did not listen to any particular statement at that time. On the following day, Nonindicted 15, 15, who read twitter, appeared to be in accordance with the contents of her statement at the team leader’s office and 2-3 times. In particular, even though he was well aware of the fact, Non-Indicted 9 respondeded to the part delivered e-mail, which was sent e-mail, and told Defendant 4 and Non-Indicted 15 to make a later statement. The second prosecutor’s second prosecutor’s statement was reversed at the time of the second prosecutor’s office’s office, and then the prosecutor’s office’s testimony was made differently from the fact that she had received a second prosecutor’s statement.

③ 실무진 T/F에서 작성한 것으로 보이는 ‘트위터팀 직원 증인신문 관련 참고사항’ 문건에는 “트위터의 경우 간혹 3~4줄의 대응논지가 행정우편을 통해 전달된 적도 있으나, 주로 구두로 전달되었고, 다른 파트, 다른 팀은 어떻게 전달되었는지 알지 못한다고 팩트대로 진술할 것으로 예상됨 ※공소외 11, 공소외 9가 이미 1회 조사시 위 사실을 구체적으로 인정, 2회 조사 이후 부인 또는 묵비하고 있고, 타 직원들 모두 ‘구두로만 전달받았다’고 주장한 바 있음”이라고 기재되어 있다. 그런데 공소외 9는 앞서 본 바와 같이 검찰 제1회 조사에서 ‘이슈 및 논지’를 매일 내부 이메일로 전달받는다는 취지로 진술하였고, 공소외 11도 2013. 10. 17. 검찰 제1회 조사에서 ‘사무실로 출근하여 지문 인식으로 본인 컴퓨터를 켜고, 마찬가지로 본인만 접속이 가능한 내부망에서 전자우편을 통해 매일 오전 10시경 이슈 및 논지를 전달받아 확인하였다. 트위터를 담당하는 ▲▲▲▲ 5팀 파트원들에게 공통적으로 전달된다는 것은 알지만 심리전단 나머지 팀에게도 동일하게 전달되는지 여부는 모른다’고 진술하여, 위 문건에 기재된 바와 같이 ‘트위터의 경우 간혹 3~4줄의 대응논지가 행정우편을 통해 전달된 적도 있으나, 주로 구두로 전달되었다’는 취지로 진술한 바가 없다. 실무진 T/F에서도 공소외 9, 공소외 11의 위 검찰진술 내용을 파악하고 위 ‘참고사항’ 문건을 작성한 것으로 보이는바, 위 “팩트대로”와 같은 문구가 있다고 하여 실무진 T/F에서 단지 트위터 직원들의 검찰 진술 내용만을 토대로 위증교사의 고의 없이 위 ‘참고사항’ 문건을 작성하였다고 보기 어렵다. 앞서 본 ‘트위터 현안 관련 실무직원 조사 대응기조’ 문건에도 “업무지시는 종북세력에 대한 대응 등 일반적인 업무지시에 불과하였으므로, 구체적인 업무 글 작성은 개개인이 알아서 올렸음”, “전 원장 지시 형태를 구체적으로 추가 신문할 경우 ‘지휘계통상 전 원장님의 지시는 종북세력 대응 관련 업무방침만 내리신 걸로 알고 있고, 이러한 업무방침이 국장과 처장을 통해 팀원에게 전달되었다’고 진술”이라고 기재되어 있다. 이에 비추어 보면, 공소외 9 등의 위와 같은 검찰 진술에도 불구하고 트위터팀 직원 증인신문과 관련하여 여전히 ‘이슈 및 논지’를 구두로 전달 받은 것으로 하자는 내용의 대응기조가 유지되었음을 알 수 있다.

④ It is difficult to view that Nonindicted 15, without understanding of Defendant 4’s successive public invitation and the response mechanism of T/F, independently conducted by Nonindicted 9 with respect to “Ack and scam,” as above, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 15, without any understanding of Defendant 4’s response mechanism. Defendant 4 also seems to have made Nonindicted 9, while being well aware of the content of the response mechanism, he was well aware of the aforementioned response mechanism, and made the statement that he

E) Nonindicted 10

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court, on November 4, 2013, ordered Nonindicted 16 and Nonindicted 17, who conspired in sequence with the executive members T/F, including Defendant 1, to the effect that Nonindicted 16 and Nonindicted 17, who had been invited in order with the executive members, stated that Nonindicted 10 could have received the verbal transmission of Nonindicted 10, rather than sending it to Nonparty 10 as the mail, rather than sending it as the mail, and accordingly, determined that Nonindicted 10 was guilty of perjury against his memory by attending Nonindicted 2 as a witness of the National Intelligence Service Act case, such as violation of the NISA against Nonindicted 10, and by making a false statement as if he was unable to receive it in writing.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

Non-Indicted 10 testified around November 4, 2013, when Non-Indicted 10 constituted the working-level T/F and testified, and “the progress of the trial related to the original comments and Twitter case ( November 4, 2013)” the prosecutor’s office asked Non-Indicted 10 employee of the case at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, but Non-Indicted 10’s statement was delivered in writing, and reversed his statement at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation. Non-Indicted 10’s explanation that Non-Indicted 10’s statement was not submitted in writing by himself at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, and Non-Indicted 10’s explanation that it was merely made in accordance with the habit that Non-Indicted 10’s statement that Non-Indicted 10 received “this issue and debate” verbally, and it is difficult to see the court below’s aforementioned assertion that Non-Indicted 17 and Non-Indicted 16 were justifiable in light of the following reasons.

F) Nonindicted 11

(1) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 피고인 4가 공소외 15, 공소외 16이 배석한 상태에서 공소외 11에게 ‘법정에서 증언할 때 심리전단 업무, 조직, 인사에 관하여 구체적으로 진술하지 말고, ’이슈 및 논지‘는 한 방향으로 가야 한다’고 지시하여, 이에 따라 공소외 11이 2014. 3. 18.경 공소외 2에 대한 국가정보원법위반 등 사건의 증인으로 출석하여 마치 ① 부정기적으로 파트장으로부터 구두로 ‘이슈 및 논지’를 하달받은 것처럼 허위로 진술하고, ② 다수의 트위터 계정을 활용하여 ◆◆◆ 활동을 하라는 지시를 받은 것이 기억나지 않는 것처럼 허위로 진술하며, ③ 트위터 계정 이름과 비밀번호를 파트장이나 팀내 담당 직원에게 보고한 사실이 기억나지 않는 것처럼 허위로 진술함으로써 자신의 기억에 반하여 위증하였다고 판단하였다.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant 4's assertion disputing this is without merit.

① 공소외 11은 2013. 10. 17. 제1회 검찰 조사에서 ‘이슈 및 논지’가 생산되고 전달되는 방식 및 그것이 심리전단 ◆◆◆활동의 중요한 지침이 된다는 사실과 더불어 ‘이슈 및 논지’에 정치적 중립에 배치되는 내용이 포함되거나 그날 전파할 취지에 부합하는 보수논객의 대표적인 트위터글을 확산(리트윗)하라는 취지로 하나씩 소개된 적이 있는 등 ‘이슈 및 논지’의 구체적인 내용에 관하여서도 상세하게 진술하였으며, 기획부서에서 주로 사용하는 트위터 계정 한 두 개를 보고하라고 하여 이를 적어서 낸 기억이 있다고 진술하였으나, 2013. 11. 7. 제2회 검찰 조사에서는 ‘매일 파트장이 구두로 키워드를 정리해서 '이슈 및 논지’를 전달하였고, 지난번에는 경황이 없어 사실과 다르게 진술하였다‘고 이를 번복하고, 대부분의 신문에 대하여 진술을 거부하였다. 공소외 11은 2014. 3. 18. 위 사건의 증인으로 출석하여 증인신문과정에서 ’파트장으로부터 부정기적으로 ‘이슈 및 논지’를 전달 받았는데 천편일률적인 내용이어서 크게 참고하지 않았다‘, ’여러 개 계정을 만들라는 지시를 받은 기억이 없다‘, ’트위터 계정의 이름과 비밀번호를 파트장이나 팀내 담당 직원에게 보고한 기억이 없다‘고 진술하고, 검찰에서 자세하게 진술한 내용에 대하여 ’띄엄띄엄 이야기 한 것이 한 번에 다 진술한 것처럼 되어 있다‘거나 ’검사가 말한 데 대해 공감하였을 뿐인데 직접 진술한 것처럼 되어 있다‘고 진술하였으며, 대부분의 신문에 대하여 잘 모르겠다거나 본인의 형사사건과 관계되어 있어 진술을 거부한다는 취지로 대응하였다.

② With respect to the circumstances in which Nonindicted 11 made a false statement, Nonindicted 11 made a false statement at the prosecutor’s office under the direction of Nonindicted 1 to make a statement that he received the issue and question two times prior to the prosecution’s second investigation, rather than e-mail within the NIS, but not the head of Nonindicted 15 team who was an attorney-at-law before the court testimony was not clear,” and “ Nonindicted 43 and Nonindicted 4 were told with the prosecutor’s office before the court testimony that they would not specifically talk with the affairs of the psychological team and the psychological team, and that they would have been unable to give testimony as they appear to have been first stated by the prosecutor’s office, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted 1 to clearly give testimony concerning the affairs of the psychological team.” The court below rejected Nonindicted 1’s statement that “It was difficult for the attorney-at-law to specially respond first, to the issue that he would have received the direction of Nonindicted 1, 15, and the testimony that he would have received an oral delivery of his issue and issue.”

③ Nonindicted 18 stated in the lower court’s trial that “Nonindicted 11’s initial statement is disadvantageous to Nonindicted 11, i.e., that Defendant 6 was aware of the fact that he would not have made such a statement.” Nonindicted 18 stated that “documents related to Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 9’s testimony” is asserting that the part of Nonindicted 1’s testimony regarding the “state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state-state public prosecutor’s.”

G) Nonindicted 12

(1) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 공소외 12가 일관되게 외곽팀의 존재에 대해 진술하지 말라는 대책회의의 결과를 전달받고 위증을 하였다고 진술한 점, 원심 법정에서는 증언 전에 예상신문사항을 가지고 연습하였다고 진술하기도 한 점, 실무진 T/F에서 작성한 공소외 12에 대한 예상신문사항에 공소외 12가 위증한 부분에 관한 질문이 기재되어 있고, ‘공판진행상황 보고’에 공소외 12가 위증한 부분에 관하여 상세한 기재가 되어 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인 4가 공소외 12에게 ‘외곽팀의 존재나 ◆◆◆ 활동과 관련된 사실을 진술하지 말라’고 지시하였고, 이에 따라 공소외 12가 2014. 4. 7.경 공소외 2에 대한 국가정보원법위반 등 사건의 증인으로 출석하여 ① 국정원 트위터 활동 시 외곽팀을 활용한 사실이 없고, 트위터 외곽팀 활동과 무관하게 봉사동호회와 관련하여 공소외 45와 이메일을 주고받거나 공소외 45에게 잘못 이메일을 보낸 것처럼 허위로 진술하고, ② 공소외 12가 사용하는 이메일에 첨부된 파일에 기재된 트위터 계정들에 대하여 평소 관심을 갖고 참고할 만한 계정을 정리한 것일 뿐 위 트위터 계정들을 사용하지 않은 것처럼 허위로 진술하고, ③ 2013. 11. 4. 공소외 46 명의로 개통한 2대의 휴대폰 중 1대를 공소외 45에게 주지 않은 것처럼 허위로 진술하고, ④ 국정원 심리전단 ◆◆◆팀 내 팀원들과 트위터 계정 정보를 공유하지 않고, 트위터 계정을 공동으로 사용하지도 않은 것처럼 허위로 진술함으로써 자신의 기억에 반하여 위증하였다고 판단하였다.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

원심이 든 사정에다가 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 사정, 즉 공소외 12는 검찰에서의 2회에 걸친 조사에서 ‘피고인 4가 직접 또는 팀장을 통해 대책회의의 결과를 전해주며 트위터 외곽팀 문제에 대하여 함구하라는 지시를 하였다’고 일관되게 진술하였고, 원심 법정에서도 ‘피고인 4로부터 들은 것인지, 팀장이나 ◆◆◆대응 2팀원들에게 들은 것인지 기억이 명확하지 않다’고 하면서도 ‘대책회의와 관계없이 개인이 그런 말을 할 수는 없고 분명 대책회의에서 결정된 방침이라고 전달 받았으며, 당시 대책회의에서 큰 방향이 정해져 ◆◆◆대응팀에서 세부적인 것을 했다고 기억한다’고 하여 외곽팀에 대해 함구하라는 대책회의의 방침을 심리전단 지휘계통을 통하여 전달 받았음을 분명히 하였으며, 파트장인 공소외 12에게 ‘체포 직후 대책회의의 결과’를 전해줄 사람은 피고인 4나 또는 피고인 4의 지시를 받은 공소외 16 등 팀장급일 수밖에 없는 점 등을 더하여 보면, 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 정당하다고 인정되므로, 이를 다투는 피고인 4의 주장은 이유 없다.

H) Nonindicted 13

(1) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 공소외 13이 일관되게 피고인 4의 지시와 실무진 T/F 소속 공소외 28 변호사의 진술교육 또는 연습에 따라 위증하였다고 진술한 점, 실무진 T/F의 공소외 13에 대한 예상신문사항에 공소외 13이 위증한 내용과 일치하는 문답이 기재되어 있는 점, ‘공판진행상황 보고’의 공소외 13과 관련된 부분이 공소외 13이 위증한 내용에 중점을 두고 기재되어 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인 4가 공소외 13에게 국정원의 입장과 조직 보호를 강조하면서 이전에 다른 직원들이 ‘이슈 및 논지’ 전파 방법 등 ◆◆◆ 활동에 관하여 기존 진술을 뒤집으면서까지 사실과 다르게 증언하였으니 이와 같은 취지로 증언하도록 지시하였고, 이후, 실무진 T/F 변호사는 공소외 13에게 예상신문사항을 전달한 후, 리허설을 실시하여 예상신문사항에 기재된 취지대로 증언하도록 지시하여, 이에 따라 공소외 13이 2014. 4. 29.경 공소외 2에 대한 국가정보원법위반 등 사건의 증인으로 출석하여 ① 마치 ‘이슈 및 논지’ 하달 방법에 관하여 국정원 내부망 이메일이 아니라 기본적으로 구두로 하달하였고, 매일 하달받은 것도 아니라고 진술하고, ② 직원들로부터 트위터 활동 실적을 정기적으로 보고받지 않았다고 진술하였으며, ③ 공소외 11이 사용한 (계정 생략) 계정에 대해 팀원들에게 확인했을 때 사용하였다고 인정한 팀원이 없었다고 허위로 진술함으로써 자신의 기억에 반하여 위증하였다고 판단하였다.

(2) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and thus, Defendant 4 and Defendant 6’s assertion disputing such determination is without merit.

① The document stating that Nonindicted 13 included some of the statements made by the Prosecutor’s Office in the document for reference to the examination of Nonindicted 13 witness is organized into more persuasive terms. In particular, it is written to understand that Nonindicted 14, etc. did not give advice and direction as “for example, Nonindicted 14’s testimony at once,” or that “if Nonindicted 14 director-general mentioned above, he would stop the establishment of the inventive power, he does not mean that he would have a general camping power, and that it was not desirable for Nonindicted 14, etc. to interfere with the presidential election and expand his ability by interfering with the presidential election of Korea.” In particular, the document stating that Nonindicted 13’s statement made by Nonindicted 13 to the Prosecutor’s office, which might be particularly problematic, was accompanied by Nonindicted 14, etc.’s testimony and did not give instructions corresponding to the entry into an election.”

② In each document of “the cross-examination of Nonindicted 13’s defense counsel,” and “the main examination of Nonindicted 13’s prosecutor,” Nonindicted 2, etc. stated that Nonindicted 2, etc. performed prudent activities to prevent misunderstanding by entering politics or election openings after August 2012, and took an instruction to emphasize the psychological force centering on the North and South Korea’s security issues, it is distinguishable from other answers given in the shape of sweighing and underline. Nonindicted 13, in the court of the lower trial, stated that “the part on the basis of each of the above documents, etc., should be different from those of other answers.” In light of the foregoing, the part on Nonindicted 13’s response to Nonindicted 3’s response, which was the core part related to Nonindicted 13’s response to the NIS’s case, was written with Nonindicted 13’s statement on Nonindicted 13 as Nonindicted 28’s reply, which did not affect the aforementioned part of Nonindicted 13’s reply to the prosecution.”

3) Whether Defendant 5’s conspiracy or participation was made

1) The lower court determined that Defendant 5 could be assessed as having made an essential contribution to the realization of crime through functional control, on the grounds that Defendant 5 set up a response clause regarding the NIS case as a member of T/F, and that Defendant 5 was also reported as a result of the law assistant room, psychological leaflet, and working-level T/F’s implementation.

2) In addition to the above circumstances, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, given that Defendant 6 sent each of the “measures against the witness examination” documents to Defendant 5 by e-mail, Defendant 5’s assertion disputing such determination is without merit.

E. Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6’s testimony

1) Determination on Defendant 6’s assertion of infringement of defense right

Of this part of the facts charged, the part on Defendant 6 against Defendant 6 is that “Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 3, who was affiliated with the psychological team on April 2014, posted an article on the Internet following the Internet: (a) Nonindicted 1, who was asked to attend as a witness of the judgment on the case of the NIS’s psychological team; (b) reported this to the executive /F; and (c) the executive / F members decided that Nonindicted 1, who was affiliated with the psychological team, would be unable to attend as witness of the judgment on the case of the NIS’s psychological team by sending the above Nonindicted 1 a business trip abroad; and (d) the lower court determined that Nonindicted 1, who was affiliated with the psychological team around April 2014, who was unable to attend as witness of the judgment, was unable to have the NIS’s appearance as witness of the case.”

피고인 6은 법률보좌관실 연구관 및 실무진 T/F의 팀장으로서 공소외 3과 함께 피고인 4가 구성원으로 있는 간부진 T/F에 지속적으로 참여하면서 국정원 심리전단 사건 수사 및 재판 진행상황 등을 보고해 왔다. 그렇다면 피고인 6이 공소외 1이 증인으로 채택된 사실을 간부진 T/F에 보고하여 간부진 T/F가 공소외 1의 해외 출장을 결정하였다는 공소사실의 내용과 피고인 6이 간부진 T/F가 더 이상 열리지 않는 시점에 이르러 공소외 1이 증인으로 채택되자 피고인 4, 피고인 5, 공소외 3과 공소외 1의 증인 출석 여부에 관하여 논의하는 등 함께 공소외 1의 증인도피를 결정하였다는 것 사이에 실질적으로 큰 차이가 없다. 나아가 피고인 6은 이미 원심 공판과정에서 피고인 4, 피고인 8, 공소외 18 등이 피고인 6이 공소외 1의 해외 출장을 먼저 제안하였다거나 주도적으로 처리하였다는 취지로 증언한 데 대하여 ‘공소외 1의 증인불출석 및 러시아 출장에 관여한 사실이 전혀 없다’, ‘파견검사로서 간부진 T/F의 구성원도 아닌 피고인이 ◀◀지부 소속 직원의 해외 출장을 제안한다는 것은 국정원 조직 특성상 상상하기 어렵다'는 등의 내용으로 수차례 변소하였다.

In light of the above circumstances, even if the court below acknowledged the criminal facts that Defendant 6 decided to prevent the non-indicted 1 from attending as witness, unlike the facts charged without going through the amendment of indictment, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 6’s defense was essentially infringed. Thus, this part of Defendant 6’s assertion is without merit.

2) Whether Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 participated in the public offering or participation

A) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court fully recognized that Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 were involved in the escape of Nonindicted Party 1 as a witness in the trial of the NIS case, and determined that the Defendants’ status, such as the chief of the hearing group, the chief of the ○○○ Office, the executive /F members, and the head of the working team team, can be deemed to have contributed essential to the realization of the crime through functional control, and thus, held that the above Defendants’ act as a co-principal bears the burden of criminal liability as a co-principal.

A) Defendant 4

Non-Indicted 1 consistently notified the prosecutor's office and the court of original trial that he was adopted as a witness in the trial of the case of the NIS, and confirmed the facts with the hearing leaflet of the main office, and confirmed the facts, and subsequently Defendant 4 was asked to notify whether he was present at the witness. After that, Non-Indicted 1 stated that he made a business trip by notifying the staff of the hearing leaflet of the main office of the decision that he was present at the time of his appearance. The statement by Non-Indicted 1 is inconsistent with the prosecutor's office and the court of original trial, and it is also unclear in the prosecutor's office that the part on whether he was informed of the reason for his absence (foreign business trip) by the main office and the court of original trial, and it is also unclear that the prosecutor did not state the reason why he was informed that he was directly adopted as a witness by Defendant 4, but it is very specific that the main part is consistent and the contents of his statement can not be directly experienced

공소외 1의 출장 일수와 소요 주6) 예산 등에 비추어 보면 공소외 1의 출장을 ◀◀지부 차원에서 결정하였을 것으로 볼 수는 없다. 피고인 4는 간부진 T/F의 구성원으로 참여하면서 심리전단의 부서장으로서 국정원 심리전단 사건에 대한 실체 파악, 검찰 및 법원에 출석할 예정인 직원들에 대한 관리 등을 담당하였다. 비록 공소외 1이 증인으로 채택된 시점에 심리전단이 아닌 ◀◀지부 소속이기는 했지만, 공소외 1의 증인 출석은 국정원 심리전단 사건의 공판에 관계된 것이므로 피고인 4가 관여했을 개연성이 충분하고 공소외 1의 위와 같은 진술 내용은 이를 뒷받침한다. 피고인 4 스스로도 공소외 1이 국정원 심리전단 사건 재판의 증인으로 채택된 후 국정원 본청에 출장을 왔을 때 공소외 1을 만난 사실이 있고, 그 때 공소외 1이 증인 출석을 하지 않게 도와달라는 부탁을 하였으며, 피고인 6이 자신에게 공소외 1의 증인 출석 문제에 관하여 문의한 사실이 있다고도 주7) 진술하였다.

B) Defendant 5

Defendant 5, who was aware of Nonindicted Party 1’s witness escape at the prosecutor’s office, made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted Party 1’s witness was absent, and that Nonindicted Party 1 was involved in the decision on his overseas business trip. Defendant 5 made a statement to the effect that “Defendant 5 made a statement from the legal assistant room that she would be able to send a foreign business trip because she would have caused Nonindicted Party 1 to be unable to go as a witness, and that she would have to do so, she would have to do so, and she would have to do so, she would have to do so, and she would have to do so, but she would not have to do so.” (Evidence No. 44, 1655, et al., of the record).

Defendant 5 was a member of T/F, and the head of ○○○ Office was in the position to review whether permission was granted in the process of obtaining the permission of the president of the NIS as a witness to make a statement. Even if Defendant 5, as alleged above, was in the course of discussing whether Nonindicted Party 1’s witness is also a witness, Defendant 5 should be deemed to have recruited Nonindicted Party 1’s witness and participated in the process of gathering a personal dissenting opinion. As long as Defendant 5 did not prevent Defendant 5 from executing the decision.

C) Defendant 6

Non-Indicted 18 consistently stated in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below that Defendant 6 made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 1 was unsatisfed. Russatia was sent to Russatia.” Although there were circumstances that Non-Indicted 18 made the aforementioned statements after converting the status as a suspect from a witness, the above statements are highly high in view of the relationship between Non-Indicted 18 and Defendant 6 who performed work together with the fact that Non-Indicted 18 did not have received illegal instructions from Defendant 6 in relation to the perjury, as well as the fact that Non-Indicted 18 consistently stated that there was no fact that Non-Indicted 6 did not receive illegal instructions from Defendant 6 in relation to the perjury, since the contents of the above statements are very specific, it is difficult to deem that such statements caused a mistake in the press, etc

Defendant 4 also consistently stated that the specific contents of Defendant 4 did not memory, but the talked about Nonindicted 1’s business trip from Defendant 6, and Defendant 4 is difficult to find the reason for Defendant 4 to make a false statement as to this part. Defendant 8 stated that Nonindicted 3, a legal assistant, referred to as Nonindicted 1’s witness in the presence of Nonindicted 1, and if Nonindicted 3 mentioned above, it is highly probable that he was Defendant 6, a research officer in the legal assistant position.

Defendant 6 was the head of the working-level T/F team to take overall charge of the practical affairs related to the response to the case of the NIS. Defendant 6’s “The progress of the trial on April 14, 2014 relating to the instant case (the trial date Nonparty 28 and the trial date Nonparty 47 and Nonparty 14 on April 18, 2014)” written by the working-level T/F stating that “I will thoroughly prepare for this, since the examination of a witness is scheduled on April 29, 2014 for Nonindicted 14:00 and Nonindicted 13 and 14 employees,” written by Defendant 6 as part of the response to the exchange of Nonindicted 1 Witness. In light of this, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 6 participated in the escape of Nonindicted 1 to a foreign country as part of the response to the exchange of Nonindicted 1 Witness 8).

B) Judgment of the appellate court

(1) Details of the statement of the persons concerned

⑴ 공소외 1의 러시아 출장계획을 결재한 ◀◀지부장 공소외 48은 항소심 법정에서 공소외 1이 러시아로 출장을 간 경위에 대하여 ‘수사처에서 외부 직원이 한 명 필요하다고 하여 정보처 직원 중 공소외 1을 보내기로 내부적으로 결정했다’는 취지로 진술하였으나, 함께 갔던 수사처 직원들은 계획대로 4박 5일 일정을 마치고 돌아왔음에도 정작 공소외 1의 출장기간은 14박 15일로 계획이 되었을 뿐 아니라 그마저도 두 달 가까이로 연장된 이유가 무엇인지에 관하여는 설명을 하지 못하고 있다. 당시 상황은 증인도피라는 측면을 고려하지 않고 출장계획의 내용이나 예산의 조달방법 등만을 고려하여 보더라도 일반적인 ◀◀지부 내 출장계획 결재와는 큰 차이가 있어 기억에 남을 법한데도 공소외 48은 전혀 기억이 나지 않는다는 태도로 일관하고 있는바, 공소외 48의 항소심 법정진술은 쉽게 믿기 어렵다.

⑵ ◀◀지부장 정보처장 공소외 49는 항소심 법정에서 ‘기획관으로부터 공소외 1이 증인으로 채택됐는데 본부에서 안 나갈 수 있도록 하라고 한다는 이야기를 들었다’, ‘공소외 1은 정보처 직원으로서 러시아로 출장을 가야 할 이유가 없었지만 ◀◀지부장에게 위 내용을 보고하자 궁여지책으로 공소외 1을 수사처 출장계획에 포함시켰다고 알고 있다’, ‘해외출장이라든지 구체적 절차는 지부에서 처리하라고 전해 들었다. 불출석 방침에 따라 본부에서 인사명령을 내주거나 하면 좋을 텐데 ◀◀지부에서 알아서 하라고 하고 더욱이 정보처에는 해외로 나가는 활동이 없기 때문에 곤란하였다’, ‘공소외 1이 증인 채택 문제로 본부에 갈 때 심리전단에 갔던 것으로 알고 있다’, ‘기획관이 본부와 연락하면서 공소외 1에게 아직 들어오지 말라고 하고 계속 출장기간을 연장하였다’, ‘본부에서 지부에 있는 직원에 대하여 출장을 명할 수도 있는데, 티가 나지 않게 하려는 것이라고 생각했다’는 등으로 진술하였다. 공소외 49는 공소외 16과 입사 동기이고 공소외 1과는 심리전단 ★★★에서 함께 근무하였으며 공소외 1에게 ◀◀지부에 올 것을 권유하기도 하는 등 가까운 사이이고, 스스로 ’공소외 1의 증인 출석 문제와 관련하여 공소외 16에게 전화하여 우려를 표한 적이 있다‘는 취지로 진술하기도 하였으나, 공소외 49가 당시 공소외 1의 증인 불출석 문제와 관련하여 위증죄로 처벌받을 것을 감수하고 항소심 법정에서 허위 진술을 할 특별한 동기가 없고, 기억나지 않는 사항에 대해서는 기억나지 않는다고 진술하고 불명확한 사항에 대해서는 추측에 의한 것이라는 점을 분명히 구분하는 태도로 진술하였으며, 공소외 1은 본청에서 불출석 사유는 알아서 정하라고 했다고 진술한 반면 공소외 49는 해외출장이라는 사유를 어느 정도 이야기해주었다고 다소 다르게 진술하여 사전에 진술의 내용을 맞추었다고 보이지도 않고, 주로 공소외 1로부터는 힘들다는 이야기밖에 듣지 못하였다고 하고 기획관으로부터 받은 보고 내용을 중심으로 진술하는 등 공소외 1과의 친밀한 관계를 고려하더라도 증인 공소외 49의 법정진술은 신빙성이 있다.

⑶ 공소외 1은 출장을 가게 된 경위와 관련하여, ① 2017. 10. 23. 검찰조사에서는 ‘피고인 4에게 러시아 출장을 가는 시기와 증인으로 출석하는 일자가 겹치는데 증인으로 출석해야 하는지 결정해 달라고 하자 피고인 4가 일단 ◀◀지부로 내려가 있으면 나중에 연락을 주겠다고 하였고, 얼마 후 심리전단 직원이 전화하여 법원에 불출석사유서를 제출하고 러시아로 출장을 가라고 알려주었다’고 진술하였고, ② 2017. 11. 주10) 23. 검찰조사에서는 ‘◀◀지부에서 출장 계획은 잡혀 있었는데, 위 출장에 참여할지 여부는 확정되지 않은 상황에서 증인출석 요청이 올 것이라면서 관련 자료를 확인하기 위해 본청으로 오라는 연락을 받았다. 피고인 4에게 해외출장 건도 있고, 증인 출석 요구도 받았는데 어떻게 할지 결정해 주셨으면 좋겠다고 말하였고, 그 후 직원이 전화하여 법원에 불출석사유서를 제출하고 출장을 가라고 했다’고 진술하였으며, ③ 2018. 3. 27.경 원심 법정에서는 ‘출석하지 말라는 통보는 받았으나 불출석사유는 알아서 정하라고 하여 ◀◀지부장과 의논하여 출장계획을 잡았다. 출장은 수사처 직원들에 대하여 기존부터 계획이 있었는데 날짜만 변경하여 참여하게 되었다’라고 진술하거나 ‘본청에 올라갔을 때는 출장을 가는지 안 가는지 최종 결정되지 않았다. 당시 안보위해인물 관리 T/F 간사로 있으면서 수사처 해외출장 시 옵서버로 출장을 갈 수 있는 여건이기는 했지만, 주어진 임무가 있어 자리를 비울 만한 상황도 아니었기 때문에 출장과는 무관하였고 계획도 없었다. 처음 피고인 4와 만났을 때 출장이라는 단어가 나오지 않았다’고 진술하였다.

⑷ 위와 같이 공소외 1의 세 차례에 걸친 진술은 국정원 측 결정이 자신이 출장가게 된 데 더욱 큰 영향을 미쳤다는 방향으로 점차 바뀌었고, 특히 원심 법정에서는 피고인 4와 출장에 관한 이야기를 한 적이 없고 심리전단 직원이 불출석하라는 결정을 전하면서 사유는 알아서 정하라고 하였다는 취지로 진술하기도 하였다. 그러나 세 차례의 진술 모두 ① 증인으로 소환된 사실을 알게 되기 전부터 자신이 옵서버 자격으로 참여할 만한 출장계획이 ◀◀지부 내에 마련되어 있었다는 점, ② 심리전단 측으로부터 증인으로 소환되었다는 연락을 받고 심리전단 측의 요청으로 국정원 본청에 가 다음 카페와 아고라에 자신의 아이디 ‘(아이디 생략)’[닉네임 ’(닉네임 생략)‘] 명의로 작성된 게시글 목록 및 이메일 내용을 출력한 것을 보여주면서 확인하기에 자신이 작성한 것이 맞다고 확인해준 다음 심리전단장실로 가 피고인 4에게 증인 출석 여부를 결정해달라고 말하였다는 점, ③ 그 후 심리전단 직원으로부터 불출석하라는 통보를 받았다는 점 등에서 내용이 일관될 뿐 아니라, 공소외 49가 항소심 법정에서 ’본청에서 불출석사유를 구체적으로 말해주지는 않았으나 해외출장 쪽으로 마련하라는 뉘앙스였다‘, ’당시 해외출장 외에는 생각할 수 있는 방법이 없었다'고 진술한 점을 고려하면 공소외 1이 해외출장이라는 불출석 사유까지 본청에서 알려주었는지에 관하여 불분명하거나 다소 일관되지 않은 진술을 하였다고 하더라도 신빙성을 배척할 만한 사유는 아니다.

⑸ 공소외 1은 원심 법정에서 피고인 4로부터 직접 증인으로 채택되었다는 연락을 받았다고 진술하였는데, 검찰에서는 단지 ‘심리전단 어떤 직원’으로부터 증인으로 채택되었다는 연락을 받았다고 진술하였고, 공소외 17은 항소심 법정에서 ’처음 공소외 1에게 전화하여 법원에서 증인으로 나오라고 하더라는 말을 전하였더니, 공소외 1이 자신이 나가면 골치 아파진다면서 걱정을 많이 하였다. 전화를 한 다음 공소외 1이 심리전단 사무실인가 복도에 한 번 찾아온 것 같기도 하다‘는 취지로 진술하였다. 그런데 공소외 1이 당시 피고인 4로부터 전화가 온 상황과 이를 기억하고 있는 경위에 관하여 상세하게 진술하고 있는 반면, ① 공소외 17은 위 법정 진술 시 법원이나 검찰에서 국정원으로 공문이 오면 실무진 T/F로 오기 때문에 공소외 1에게 전화한 기억이 난다는 진술을 반복하는 등 사실조회와 관련하여 공소외 1에게 연락하였던 것과 기억을 혼동하고 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ② 공소외 1은 검찰 및 원심 법정에서 증인으로 채택되었다는 소식과 함께 사실관계 확인을 위해 본청으로 오라는 이야기를 들었다고 일관되게 진술하였는데, 공소외 17은 위 진술 내용에 비추어 공소외 1이 국정원 본청에 온 이유를 알지 못하였다고 보여 공소외 1에게 증인 채택 사실과 함께 사실관계 확인을 위해 본청에 오라는 지시를 전한 심리전단 직원의 존재가 추정되는 점, ③ 심리전단 직원 공소외 50은 검찰에서 ’피고인 4가 심리전단장이던 때 검찰에서 수사와 관련하여 보내온 협조의뢰 공문(인터넷 ID계정에 대한 직원 계정 여부 확인) 처리 또는 언론에서 터뜨리는 자료(국정원 직원 ID로 등록된 정치성 글들 확인)에 대한 확인 작업을 하였다‘고 진술하였는데, 공소외 1은 ◀◀지부에 근무하고 있었기 때문에 심리전단 측에서 공소외 1 증인소환을 앞두고 본청에 올라와 게시글 등을 확인해 줄 것을 요청할 필요성도 있었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 4로부터 직접 증인으로 채택되었다는 연락을 받았다는 취지의 위 공소외 1 진술은 신빙성이 있다.

⑹ 공소외 17은 항소심 법정에서 ‘당시 변호사 직원들 사이에 공소외 1이 했던 활동 때문에 증인으로 나갔다가 국정원이 더 다치겠다는 염려가 있었고, 피고인 6이 회의에 다녀오더니 “공소외 1 때문에 그런데 어디 나갔다 오면 안 되나?”라고 지나가는 말을 하였다. 본인도 나가기 싫어하고 ◆◆◆심리전과 상관없는 사람이니까 공소외 1을 증인으로 보내지 않기 위해 노력하는 측면이 있었다’고 진술하였다.

(2) Specific determination

In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the appellate court, it is reasonable that the court below decided that Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 conspired to flee Nonindicted 1 to a foreign country and participated in it so that they may not attend as a witness of the trial of the NIS case. Thus, the arguments of Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 disputing this are without merit.

(A) Defendant 4

In light of the aforementioned prosecutorial statement of Nonindicted 1, the court below’s legal statement, and Nonindicted 49’s statement in the appellate court’s appellate court, Defendant 4 notified Nonindicted 1 of his decision that he was not a witness through the staff members of the hearing team, and recognized the fact that he had the witness escape on the ground that he would have prepared an adequate reason for not being present, such

(B) Defendant 5

Defendant 5 stated at the prosecutor’s office that “Generally, if the decision-making was made in T/F on pending issues, Defendant 4 and Defendant 6 may have delivered the decision-making on the issue of attendance of Nonindicted Party 1 witness to the above two persons, as the chief of ○○○ Office, and Defendant 5 may have delivered the decision-making on the issue of attendance of Nonindicted Party 1 witness to the said two persons. In light of his position and position, and role as the chief of ○○ Office, it is difficult to view that Defendant 4 and Defendant 6 moved to the execution of Nonindicted Party 1’s business trip, regardless of Defendant 5’

(C) Defendant 6

① According to the “documents on the progress of the trial related to the original comments and twitter case”, Nonindicted Party 1’s consent to Nonindicted Party 1’s activities relating to Nonindicted Party 1’s remuneration organization on the date of opening from April 14, 2014 to June 23, 2014, the prosecutor’s inquiry request was adopted on June 17, 2014, and the witness’s request was revoked ex officio. On June 30, 2014, it was anticipated that the pleading will be concluded on June 30, 2014 on the date of opening the trial on June 23, 2014. Nonindicted Party 1 was or was postponed on July 14, 2014 on the date of opening the trial on June 23, 2014. In light of the foregoing, Nonindicted Party 6’s overall testimony and statement on Nonindicted Party 1, who sent his final reply to Nonindicted Party 5’s reply to the final inquiry on Nonindicted Party 1, Defendant 6’s return to Korea.

② Defendant 6 alleged to the effect that Nonindicted 1 was not a major witness to be absent from the trial by sending a business trip to a foreign country. However, Nonindicted 1’s own testimony was taken out, Nonindicted 17 was likely to have been examined and reported in the appellate court’s trial by examining the comments posted by Nonindicted 1 in the working-level T/F at the time, and Nonindicted 1 voluntarily stated that “The problem is increasing and Nonindicted 1 voluntarily told the attorney-at-law and the employees and Defendant 6, the same shall be applicable.” According to the above “report on the progress of the trial” document, Defendant 6 tried to summon Nonindicted 1 as a witness at the court at the request of the prosecutor, and eventually, the prosecutor tried to summon Nonindicted 1 as a witness at the request of the prosecutor. In light of the fact that the prosecutor was absent despite the second witness’s summons, and applied for a fact inquiry, Defendant 6’s above assertion is without merit.

F. The defendant 4, the defendant 5, and the defendant 6's possession of false official document and the use of false official document

1) Whether Defendant 4 was involved in the case

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that: (a) the part on Nonindicted 1’s duty at the time of Nonindicted 1’s final response to a factual inquiry; (b) Nonindicted 6’s response to the investigation and trial; (c) Nonindicted 4’s response to the NIS’s response; and (d) Nonindicted 4’s response to Nonindicted 4’s response to the investigation and trial; and (c) it appears difficult for Defendant 4 to have participated in the preparation of the documents sent by Defendant 6, who was the head of the department, to have been unable to report the fact-finding to Nonindicted 4; and (d) it appears that Defendant 6 and Defendant 4’s response to the fact-finding in consultation with each other; and (e) Defendant 4’s response to the investigation and trial; and (e) it is difficult for Nonindicted 4 to have participated in the investigation and trial process, taking into account the following as a matter of course: (a) Defendant 4’s response to Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 4’s response to the fact-finding.

B) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the appellate court, the above determination by the court below is justified. Accordingly, Defendant 4’s assertion that is disputing this is without merit.

① Defendant 4 asserted that Nonindicted 17’s position in T/F was irrelevant to Defendant 4. However, Nonindicted 17, who received the court’s inquiry from the court of appeal to the working-level /F, received the communication, and transferred it to the attorney-at-law or Defendant 6, including Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 18, etc., or the attorney-at-law or Defendant 6. As it was impossible to make an answer at all without knowledge of Nonindicted 1’s offline activities, Defendant 4 was able to bring him to the psychological leaflet and deliver documents, and he was able to take the response to the fact inquiry. In the psychological leaflet, Defendant 4 led Nonindicted 15 to make an answer to the fact inquiry. However, it was assumed that Nonindicted 17 was prepared in accordance with the form of the attorney-at-law by receiving documents from the first day of the examination (1690) and given him to the attorney-at-law.

② 공소외 17이 실무진 T/F 소속으로서 심리전단 출신이라고 하더라도, 실무진 T/F 내부에서 공소외 1에 대한 법원의 사실조회에 대한 답변을 전부 작성할 수는 없었을 것으로 보이고, 앞서 본 공소외 1의 검찰 및 원심 법정 진술과 공소외 17의 항소심 법정 진술에 비추어 공소외 1이 실무진 T/F에 직접 자신의 ◆◆◆ 활동 내역에 대한 사실관계를 확인해준 것도 아닌 것으로 보인다. 피고인 6은 2014. 6. 20. 11:25경 피고인 4에게 미완성 상태의 ‘사실조회에 대한 답변’(순번 1689) 문건을 발송하였는데, 피고인 6이 피고인 4에게 단순히 참고하라거나 보고하기 위한 용도로 초안 형태의 문건을 보냈을 것으로 보기도 어렵다.

③ Therefore, in accordance with the basic data and contents that Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 50 prepared and sent by the staff of the psychological team, Defendant 6 or the attorney-at-law’s staff completed the response to the fact-finding inquiry regarding Nonindicted 1. In such a process, Defendant 4 is clearly reported by the staff of the relevant psychological team.

2) Whether Defendant 5 was involved in the case

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that Defendant 5 was fully aware of the fact that Defendant 5 was involved in preparing and submitting to the court, knowing that “the answer to the factual inquiry” was false, in light of the following: (a) Defendant 5 had been aware in advance of Nonindicted Party 1’s sending Nonindicted Party 1’s official trip to prevent Nonindicted Party 1’s appearance; and (b) Defendant 5 appears to have reviewed the security nature of the final text of “the reply to the factual inquiry” sent by Defendant 6 as the head of ○○○○○○ Office, on the grounds that it appears that Defendant 5 had been involved in preparing and submitting to the court, knowing that the content of “the response to the factual inquiry” was false.

B) Judgment of the appellate court

Examining the circumstances of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and thus, Defendant 5’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3) Whether Defendant 6 was involved

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the court below determined that: (a) Defendant 6 conspireds with Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 to send Nonindicted 1 to Russia in order for Nonindicted 1 to be present as witness; (b) Defendant 6 was aware that the part that Nonindicted 1’s overseas business trip was scheduled in advance regardless of the trial schedule was false; (c) Defendant 6, as the head of the T/F team, was in general in charge of preparing the response to the factual inquiry; (d) Defendant 6 knew that the fact inquiry by the court was conducted on behalf of Nonindicted 1 on the extension line of Nonindicted 1’s questioning; (v) Defendant 6 knew that the fact inquiry by the court was conducted on behalf of the witness examination by Nonindicted 1; and (v) Defendant 6 knew that the NIS reply to the fact inquiry by the court about the fact inquiry was officially confirmed by the NIS; and (v) Defendant 6’s status, the prosecutor, etc., made it difficult to recognize that the content of the reply was false.

B) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the circumstances found by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, namely, the reply to the Fact-finding conference (the order No. 1689) that Defendant 6 sent to Defendant 4, indicated in detail the content of Nonindicted 1’s duties in the psychological leaflet and the response to whether the NIS’s custody of the materials was “a plan to strengthen the psychological hearing of young-rises” and thus, it can be deemed that Defendant 6 led Defendant 1 to make a false reply, which was prepared by Nonindicted 17, before receiving documents from Nonindicted 17 (the order No. 1690), the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. Accordingly, Defendant 6’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

G. Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act regarding Defendant 3’s provision of funds to remuneration organizations

First, we examine whether Defendant 3 abused his official authority or not.

1) The judgment of the court below

The NIS performs the duty of collecting, compiling, and distributing domestic security information related to national security (Article 17 of the Government Organization Act, Article 3(1)1 of the National Intelligence Service Act). The term “domestic security information” refers to information handled to ensure national security from espionage and other anti-state activity groups, and acts against the country prone to such groups (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Regulations on Planning and Coordination of Information and Security Services). The NIS employees are prohibited from performing information activities for other state agencies, political parties, media organizations, etc. through dispatch, regular access, etc. in violation of the Act and internal regulations (Article 15-2 of the NISA). The NIS employees are departments in charge of collecting and managing information while entering large enterprises and other companies. During that process, I/Os in charge of collecting information mainly with the employees and employees of the company have been in charge of leasing information and requested cooperation.

Considering the contents of the above duties of the NIS and the fact that it is essential for the NIS staff to contact private companies to collect information and request cooperation related to the collection of information in performing their duties, and ② in the case of large companies, it is highly likely that counter-espionage and other counter-state activity groups will be exposed to them, and there is a risk that the national security might be harmed due to the leakage of domestic technology and security information, etc., it is deemed that the NIS staff’s access to large companies and the request for cooperation is the act of performing duties of the director general of △△△△△△△△△ and its employees. Accordingly, in the process of requesting financial assistance to the remuneration organization for the employees of the company, it falls under the general authority of collecting domestic security information in the nation’s transitioned government.

However, it can be deemed that the request of the NIS employee to provide financial support to a remuneration organization for a large enterprise is a “act of requesting business cooperation,” but there is no legal basis for requesting financial support, and there is no basis for deeming financial support to a remuneration organization as necessary in relation to the collection of national security or domestic security information. Therefore, this constitutes an act other than the authority related to the collection of domestic security information and constitutes an act of practically abusing official authority.

2) Judgment of the appellate court

A) Relevant legal principles

The crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights is established when a public official has committed an unlawful or unlawful act, specifically and, in relation to matters falling under his/her general authority. The abuse of authority here means that a public official unlawfully exercises it with regard to matters falling under his/her general authority, i.e., the case where a public official appears in the course of performing his/her duties or performs an act other than a legitimate authority, and is distinguishable from a tort using his/her status where a public official performs an act that does not fall under his/her general authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do4531, Dec. 24, 2014; 201Do5329, Nov. 28, 2013). In order for a public official to be deemed to fall under his/her general authority, the exercise of authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights should be deemed to fall under his/her authority. A comprehensive observation of laws and systems, even in the absence of a clear name, should be deemed to fall under his/her general authority.

B) Specific determination

Examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the appellate court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 3’s request for financial support to a private repair organization, including △△△△△△△△△△, does not fall under the general duties and authority of the Director-General of the State Administration, and Defendant 3’s request for financial support to the remuneration organization of this case does not constitute the form of performing his duties and external appearance. Therefore, Defendant 3’s act of having △△△△ and △△△△△△△△ provide financial support to a specific remuneration-based civic group cannot be deemed as an abuse of his official authority, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and so, Defendant 3’s argument disputing this issue is without merit ( long as it is deemed that Defendant 3 did not fall under the abuse of official authority under the National Intelligence Service Act, and there is no further judgment as to the remaining assertion that Defendant 3 did not participate in the request through △△△△ and △△

(1) The absence of general authority

(1) Even though it is interpreted that collecting information from large enterprises and seeking cooperation in business related thereto pursuant to the above relevant statutes cited by the court below constitutes the duties of the NIS, it is clear that requesting financial support from a remuneration organization for a company does not fall under the duties of collecting information, and it is limited to the duties of seeking business cooperation within the scope related to collecting information, and it does not include the activities of seeking cooperation in unrelated matters or demanding specific measures. Therefore, there is no statutory basis for requesting financial support from a particular remuneration organization by the director general of the NIS △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

② Articles 15 and 126 of the Constitution guarantee the freedom of corporate management aimed at the free management of a company, Article 23(1) of the Constitution declares that “all citizens’ property rights shall be guaranteed,” and Article 119(1) of the Constitution provides that “The economic order of the Republic of Korea shall be based on the respect for the economic freedom and creative initiative of individuals and enterprises,” and Article 37(2) of the Constitution provides that fundamental rights may be restricted by law only when necessary. Considering the above provisions of the Constitution, even when comprehensively and practically observing laws and systems, the act of requesting a financial support to a specific remuneration organization is not likely to be interpreted as falling under the authority of the Director General of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△

(2) The form of performance of duties and the absence of external sentence

① Even according to this part of the facts charged, Nonindicted 51, 19, or 52, upon Defendant 3’s instruction, explained to Nonindicted 20 of △△ Group or Nonindicted 53 of △△ Group the name, amount, etc. of the organization in need of financial support to Nonindicted 20 or △△ Group, and explained to Nonindicted 53 of the △△ Group the name, amount, etc. of the organization in need of financial support, and did not appear to have made such demand through the collection, etc. of domestic security information. Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Nonindicted 52, by exercising authority over the collection, preparation, and distribution of domestic security information, planning, coordination, etc. of information and security work, did not put any disadvantage to △△△ or △△△△ Group or △△△△ Group or expressed to Nonindicted 52 that “If it comes to the position of the large-scale group, it cannot be said to have been done forcibly, because of its end, it did not talk with it strongly.”

② When the National Intelligence Service promoted a program to support a remuneration organization through public and fraudulent business at the request of the Secretary General of the Office of Civil Affairs, it appears from 2009 to 2012 on the basis of official business data, such as “measures to provide funds for remuneration organizations,” “extension of the basis of national support,” and “plan to promote the title of remuneration organizations and enterprises”. However, there is no evidence to deem that the above documents were prepared by the NIS in relation to the fund support of remuneration organizations during the year 2013 and 2014, which is the time when the crime stated in this part of the facts charged was committed. Nonindicted 19 was entered in the Prosecutor’s Office by accepting the list and amount of the remuneration organization’s list on the chair of the meeting, as stated in the list and amount of the remuneration organization’s contents, and then, it was in the same form as a series of me, and Nonindicted 52Do 52 stated in the appellate trial that “the target and amount of the fund support was in the same form as the body’s name and around 214 years.”

③ The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are as follows: (a) Nonindicted 19, the first/O in charge of △△△△ and Nonindicted 52, the head of △△△△△△, Defendant 3, Nonindicted 54 through 23, and Nonindicted 51, the head of △△△△△△ Group, who are the head of △△△△△△△△△△, and Nonindicted 51, as an executive officer in charge of the rent-up of each of the above companies, requested funding to Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 53, who were in a relationship with Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 52, as an executive officer in charge of the rent-up of each of the above companies, for each of the above companies, to provide funding to the repair organization. However, the direction according to the chain of command is ordinarily different from that of the persons constituting a specific organization, and it is insufficient to recognize that the above request was made in the form of external co-principal, without a specific explanation.

H. Defendant 8’s preparation of a false official document and holding of a false official document

1) Whether report materials are the objects of the crime of preparation of false official documents

A) The judgment of the court below

The news report materials prepared and distributed by the NIS are documents which contain the official position of the NIS within the scope of its official authority. The news report materials recorded in the facts of the facts of the judgment below include not only the opinion of the NIS, but also the fact-finding as to whether employees of the NIS have posted comments, etc. on political issues systematically. Thus, it is the object of the crime of preparing false public documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do3411, Jun. 8, 2017).

B) Judgment of the appellate court

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified. Thus, Defendant 8’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

① 2012. 12. 11.자 보도자료의 제목은 ‘민주당의 “원 ◆◆◆ 활동 주장” 관련 국정원 입장’, 2013. 1. 31.자 보도자료의 제목은 ‘한겨레신문 보도에 대한 국정원 입장’, 2013. 3. 18.자 보도자료의 제목은 ‘국정원장 발언 유출 관련 입장’으로서 그 자체로 국정원의 ‘입장’에 관한 것임이 드러나기는 한다. 그런데 보도자료는 기자 등에게 기사화를 요청하기 위해 배포하는 문서로서, 기본적으로 특정한 사실을 전달하려는 목적에서 작성된다. 위 각 보도자료의 내용은 국정원의 의견뿐만 아니라, 국정원 심리전단 직원들이 조직적으로 정치 현안에 관한 댓글 등을 게시하였는지 여부나 공소외 2 전 국정원장의 지시 내용에 관한 사실 확인을 포함하고 있다(피고인 8도 스스로 위 각 보도자료를 작성하면서 공소외 14 전 심리전단장에게 묻거나 심리전단으로부터 관련 자료를 받는 등의 방법으로 공소외 7 등 국정원 심리전단 직원들의 활동 내역에 관하여 사실 확인을 거쳤다고 주장하고 있다).

(2) The document which is the object of the crime of preparing false public documents is sufficient not only where the person who prepared the document is specified, but also where the document itself is prepared, such as the form and content of the document, even though the person who prepared the document does not specify it (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2088 delivered on November 10, 195, etc.). There is no indication of the person who prepared the document in each of the above news report materials, but it is clearly revealed that the person who prepared the document is the person who prepared the document, in light of the form and content of the document, and the system.

2) Whether Defendant 8 recognized the falsity of the content at the time of preparing each report materials

A) The judgment of the court below

원심은, ① 공소외 2 전 국정원장이 재직 기간 동안 전(전) 부서장 회의, 모닝브리핑 등 회의에서 주요 국정 현안에 관해 정부 입장을 옹호하고, 반대를 일삼는 야당과 좌파 세력에 적극적으로 대응하는 한편 대통령의 업적, 성과 등을 널리 홍보할 것을 반복하여 지시한 점, ② 피고인 8이 모닝브리핑에 직접 참석하였고 국정원의 대변인으로서 공소외 2의 지시·강조 말씀과 국정원의 현안 등에 대해 포괄적인 인식을 하고 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 공소외 7이 오피스텔에서 대치하는 사건이 발생한 직후 피고인 8이 공소외 14를 만나 공소외 7의 활동내역에 대해 확인하였는데 당시 공소외 14가 엄격한 법적 잣대를 들이밀 경우 문제될 소지가 있다는 취지로 말을 하였고 보도자료 초안 작성을 위해 심리전단에서 대변인실에 제공한 참고자료에 심리전단에서 정부정책을 홍보하는 활동을 하고 있다거나 정부정책에 반대하는 인사 등을 종북세력으로 규정해 비판하고 견제하는 ◆◆◆ 활동도 하였다는 내용도 언급되어 있었던 점, ④ 보도자료는 국정원의 공식적인 입장을 담은 문서인데, 당시 언론에서 연일 국정원의 정치개입 또는 선거개입 의혹을 대대적으로 보도하고 있었던 사정을 더하여 보면, 피고인 8이 사실관계에 대한 충분한 확인 없이 막연히 심리전단의 활동이 기본적으로 정당한 안보 활동이라는 기존의 인식만으로 보도자료를 작성하고 배포하였을 것으로 보이지는 않는 점 등을 근거로 피고인 8이 국정원 직원들이 공소외 2의 지시에 따라 조직적으로 정치관여에 해당하는 ◆◆◆ 활동을 한 사실을 인식하였다고 판단하였다.

B) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified. Thus, Defendant 8’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

① In light of the experience of Defendant 8’s activities, upon receipt of a request from each government office to actively know the opinions of the relevant ministries and agencies by sending comments to each government office or sending e-mail to the media organization, Defendant 8 asserted that promoting the performance of government policies was a natural duty of public officials. However, even if Defendant 8’s respective reference materials are collected at the appellate court, at the time, Defendant 8 and almost every government agency, including the NIS, stated that “the Internet homepage of the relevant media organization, is posted a real name statement to the relevant government office,” “the relevant news and the opinions of the relevant government agencies,” “the relevant news and the relevant government office, sent the relevant news and the opinions of the relevant government agencies as a mail to the relevant government office,” and only requested the relevant government agency to cooperate to send the relevant news and the opinions of the relevant government agencies as a mail. Accordingly, Defendant 8’s assertion that the scope of duties is restricted by the National Intelligence Service Act, which is strictly prohibited by domestic political officials, is not in essence different from public relations activities under the National Intelligence Service Act.

② 공소외 15는 검찰에서 공소외 7이 오피스텔에서 대치하는 사건이 발생한 직후 보도자료 작성을 위해 심리전단에서 대변인실에 제공한 참고자료와 관련하여, ‘사건이 터진 당일은 정신이 없어서 자료를 마련할 경황이 없었으나, 그 직후에 ▲▲▲▲ 1팀, ▲▲▲▲ 3팀, 심리전략팀에서 함께 참고자료를 만들어 대변인에게 전달했다’고 진술하였고, 원심 법정에서는 ‘정리할 시간이 필요하여 사건 다음 날보다 더 나중에 주었다’는 취지로 진술하여, 피고인 8이 2012. 12. 11.자 및 2012. 12. 12.자 각 보도자료를 작성할 당시에는 심리전단에서 정부정책을 홍보하는 활동을 하고 있다거나 정부정책에 반대하는 인사 등을 종북세력으로 규정하여 비판·견제하는 ◆◆◆ 활동을 하였다는 내용이 포함된 참고자료를 제공받지 못하였다고 볼 여지도 있기는 하다. 그러나 피고인 8은 검찰에서 ‘사건이 발생한 직후 밤새 보도자료를 만드는 과정에서 대변인실 직원이 심리전단 직원과 연락을 주고받으며 도움을 받았다’는 취지로 진술하였는바, 당시 심리전단 차원의 협조가 있어 위와 같은 내용 자체는 전달 받았을 것으로 보인다.

③ 피고인 8은 위 사건 발생 당시 가장 중요한 관심사는 공소외 7이 실제 선거와 관련된 댓글 작업을 하였는지, 공소외 7이 노트북 등을 가지고 있었는지, 오피스텔이 공소외 7의 주거지인지 여부였고, 민주당과 언론에서 정부정책 및 대통령 국정성과 홍보활동을 문제 삼지 않았기 때문에, 대선 관련 선거개입이 없었음을 강조하기 위해 부차적으로 ‘정치 중립’ 등을 언급한 것일 뿐 허위의 내용을 작성하려는 고의가 없었다는 취지로도 주장한다. 민주당이 대통령 선거가 임박한 시점에서 국정원의 대선개입 여부, 즉 공소외 24 당시 대선 후보자를 비방하는 조직적인 ◆◆◆ 공작이 있었는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어 문제를 제기하였던 것은 사실이나, 늦어도 2012. 10.경 국정감사 무렵부터 국정원 심리전단이 국민을 상대로 ◆◆◆ 심리전을 하는 게 아니냐는 의문이 존재하였고, 2012. 12. 11.경 민주당에서 ‘심리정보국 직원 76명이 강남·하남 일대 카페에서 인터넷 정치현안에 댓글 활동을 한다’는 의혹을 제기하는 등 당시 현안이 후보자에 대한 직접적인 지지 또는 반대 등 대선개입 여부에만 집중되어 있었다고 볼 수 없으며, 피고인 8도 이를 인식하고 있었다.

④ On January 31, 2013, Defendant 8, at the prosecution, asked whether the contents of the report on the Han Han-gu newspaper were ‘contested’ or not, and confirmed that the articles referred to in the article were 57 items of this article on the ground that they were engaged in Nonindicted 7’s work. Although the political neutrality is a violation, there was doubt as to why the election law was violated. Defendant 8 made a statement to the effect that the public relations activities of the government did not constitute a political letter. However, Defendant 8 made a statement to the effect that it was paid for the news materials from the standpoint that it did not constitute a political letter. Even in light of the above Defendant 8’s statement, it is recognized that Nonindicted 7 made the above news materials by recognizing the fact that Nonindicted 7 posted a letter on the government policy and public relations contents, and that the above activities constituted a political intervention prohibited.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 5 is admissible as evidence

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 5 was inadmissible when taking full account of the purport of Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant 5 made a statement recognizing the authenticity of each interrogation protocol of prosecutor's suspect to himself, but the co-defendant or his defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's remaining main interrogations and evidence refused to testify. Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the protocol in which the prosecutor or senior judicial police officer made the statement to the person other than the defendant" shall be admissible as evidence in addition to the authenticity by the statement made by the original person's statement. In guaranteeing such cross-examination right, there is no reasonable ground to distinguish the co-defendant from the co-defendant and the co-defendant, and the defendant need to impeachment the contents of the protocol in which the prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol of the co-defendant is written by the prosecutor through the cross-examination.

2) Judgment of the appellate court

In a case where a co-defendant, who is an accomplice, voluntarily refuses to testify and make a testimony, the Defendant would be prevented from exercising his/her right to defense against the entire statement made by the public prosecutor at the public prosecutor. The fact that the authenticity of the protocol is proven by the statement, etc. at the date of trial of the original person, and the contents of the protocol could have been examined by the original person is a separate requirement for granting the admissibility of evidence to hearsay evidence under Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, on the ground that the co-defendant, who is an accomplice, testified to acknowledge the authenticity of the protocol as

If the prosecutor, like the court below, agrees to admit the interrogation protocol of Defendant 5 as evidence of each prosecutor's office against the remaining Defendants, and judges that the above protocol is inadmissible, the prosecutor asserts that it is nothing more than forcing the person making the original statement as co-defendant and co-defendant to testify in the court. However, it cannot be deemed that the admissibility of each protocol is denied, and rather, it is improper to deny the purport of Article 312 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the requirement for granting admissibility.

Therefore, the above determination by the court below is reasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion disputing it is without merit.

B. The fact that Defendants 2, 3, and 8 witness fee and fact-finding related to the fact-finding, preparation of false official document and the fact-finding, and the fact-finding of false official document

1) The point of witness escape

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that the evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone is beyond reasonable doubt.

① In the trial of the NIS case, the Prosecutor applied for Nonindicted Party 1 as a witness on April 14, 2014, and the trial division adopted Nonindicted Party 1 as a witness on the same day by the same day, upon the application of Nonindicted Party 1 on the date of the 28th trial day. The 28th trial day appears to have been held in the P.M., and the report on the progress of the trial was made late, and thus, it is difficult to deem that Nonindicted Party 1’s attendance at the meeting of the executive staff at the meeting of T/F on the day when the issue of Nonindicted Party 1’s attendance was discussed (no matter how Defendant

② A prosecutor may argue that there had already been discussions on the application for witness with respect to Nonindicted Party 1 before April 14, 2014, and that there had been a decision not to have Nonindicted Party 1 attend as a witness from T/F with the former executives, but this is merely nothing more than a prosecution and there has been no evidence to acknowledge such circumstances. Rather, the report on the progress of the trial related to the instant case (Nonindicted Party 28, April 14, 2014 and Nonindicted Party 47 and Nonindicted Party 14, April 18, 2014) was scheduled to thoroughly prepare for the examination of Nonindicted Party 1, and it is deemed that it was not determined whether Nonindicted Party 1’s witness is a witness at the time of the preparation of the said report.

③ Although Defendant 8 stated in T/F that there was an memory discussed whether Nonindicted Party 1 was present at the Nonindicted Party 1’s witness, in light of the fact that the content of the statement is unclear and that it could have been an assistant meeting other than T/F’s meeting, it is insufficient to recognize that there was a discussion and decision to allow the Nonindicted Party 1 to escape from T/F based on Defendant 8’s statement.

④ The confirmation of existence of Non-Indicted 1’s draft statement, report, etc. related to Non-Indicted 1’s overseas business trip (netly 1660) states that “to ascertain the conditions under which Non-Indicted 1 was allowed to take overseas business trip among the conditions within the branch by the direction of the head of the branch office”. However, in full view of Nonindicted 1’s legal statement and the fact that the source of confirmation is unclear (in full view of the content, it appears that Non-Indicted 1 verified the cause of non-Indicted 1’s absence), Defendant 1’s retirement date, etc., it cannot be deemed that Non-Indicted 1’s business trip was determined in T/F based on the said document.

B) Judgment of the appellate court

Examining the circumstances of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

2) The fact-finding-finding related to the preparation of false official document and the holding of false official document

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, since Defendant 1 retired on April 14, 2014, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the executive T/F was held, there was no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 was involved in the preparation and submission of the “responding to the factual inquiry” document, and further, there was no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 8 was involved in the preparation and submission of the “responding to the factual inquiry.”

B) Judgment of the appellate court

Examining the circumstances of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

C. Defendant 8-2’s preparation of false official documents and holding of false official documents on December 16, 2012

1) The judgment of the court below

원심은, 위 보도자료 중 “민주당이 제기한 국정원의 조직적 비방 댓글 주장은 사실무근임이 드러났다”는 내용에 관하여, 위 보도자료는 수서경찰서가 2012. 12. 16. 국정원 심리전단 사건에 대한 중간수사결과 발표로 '공소외 7 직원의 개인 컴퓨터 등을 분석한 결과 공소외 24 대선 후보에 대한 비방·지지 게시글이나 댓글을 게재한 사실을 발견하지 못했다‘고 한 것에 대한 국정원의 입장이므로, 이는 국정원이 조직적으로 특정 정당 내지 후보자를 지지하거나 반대하는 선거개입에 해당하는 ◆◆◆활동을 하지 않았다는 취지로 보는 것이 타당함을 전제로, ① 공소외 2가 국정원장 재직 기간 동안 월례 전부서장 회의 및 일일 모닝브리핑 등에서 각종 선거와 관련하여 북한이나 종북세력이 반정부 선전·선동을 강화하고 제도권 진입을 통해 국정 흔들기를 더욱 시도하고 있으니 선거 시기에 있어서도 종북세력이 선거 공간에 개입하는 것을 적극적으로 저지할 것을 반복하여 지시한 사실이 인정되고, 이러한 지시가 결국 공직선거법상 금지된 공무원의 지위를 이용한 선거운동에 대한 지시로 귀결되기는 하나, 공직선거법 위반은 정치관여와 달리 특정 선거에서 특정 후보자를 당선 또는 낙선시키고자 하는 목적성을 가진 행위여서 피고인 8이 공소외 2의 위와 같은 지시와 발언 등을 인식하고 있었다고 하여 위 보도자료 작성 당시 심리전단 직원들이 조직적으로 선거법 위반에 해당하는 ◆◆◆ 활동을 하였음을 인식하였다고 단정하기 어려운 점, ② 피고인 8이 위 보도자료 작성에 있어 참고한 심리전단으로부터 받은 참고자료 또는 공소외 14로부터 전달받은 내용 중에 선거개입과 관련된 조직적 비방 댓글 등 게재가 있었다는 내용이 포함되어 있었음을 인정할 증거가 전혀 없고, ’금일 이슈와 논지‘(순번 753)에도 ’선거와 관련하여 특정 후보자 내지 특정 정당을 지지하거나 반대‘하는 내용의 논지가 발견되지도 않는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 8이 위 발표된 중간수사결과가 사실에 부합하지 않는다는 것을 인식하고 있었던 것으로 보기는 어렵다고 판단하였다.

2) Judgment of the appellate court

In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's above determination is justified. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion disputing this is without merit.

① In light of the overall flow of the contents of a public document in question between a democratic party and the NIS since December 11, 2012 and the aforementioned news report materials, the prosecutor argued that “The National Assembly shall explicitly unconstitutionalize the contents of the public document in question with the view to maintaining political neutrality and completing the duty of the State intelligence agency, which is national security and national interests,” in the above news report materials, “The National Assembly member raised by the Democratic Party is a true fact-finding opinion.” However, it is reasonable to interpret that the contents of the public document in question should be determined by the wording of the relevant public document in light of the contents of other news report materials by the prosecutor, it is clear that the contents of the public document in question are connected with the news report materials in the form of an interim police investigation report, and that the contents of the above news report materials are “the contents of the public prosecutor’s news report in advance,” and it is evident that the contents of the public document in question were “the contents of the public prosecutor’s news report in advance of the above news report report materials in the form of the police investigation report materials.”

② 피고인 8이 2012. 12. 11.자 및 2012. 12. 12.자 허위 보도자료를 낸 상황이라고 하더라도, 앞선 위 각 보도자료는 정치현안 댓글을 달거나 정치중립에 위반하는 활동이 없었다는 포괄적인 내용인 데 비하여 2012. 12. 16.자 보도자료는 국정원이 조직적으로 특정 정당 내지 후보자를 지지하거나 반대하는 선거개입에 해당하는 ◆◆◆활동을 하지 않았다는 제한적인 내용이므로, 피고인 8이 위 보도자료 작성에 있어서도 당연히 허위성을 인식하였다고 볼 수 없다.

4. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the above defendant 4 and prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing

The crime of this case was committed in collusion with the remaining Defendants, the executive officer of the NIS, in order to prevent Defendant 4 from being revealed in the course of the investigation and trial of the case by the former president of the NIS, as the head of the new psychological group, and thus, interfered with the execution of duties regarding the search and seizure by the prosecution, and directly abetted the subordinate employees who were affiliated with the former president of the psychological group, or interfered with the witness. The crime of this case was committed by falsely preparing and using the "in response to the factual inquiry", which is an official document, as the case where he falsely prepared and used the "in response to the factual inquiry", and

On the other hand, Defendant 4 did not have any history of criminal punishment, and Defendant 4’s participation in the crime of this case in light of the order of deceptive scheme according to the strict statement and surrender of the NIS is also in accordance with the direction of the upper court.

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is determined by fully taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the appellate court’s judgment’s punishment against Defendant 4 cannot be deemed excessively heavy or unreasonable. Accordingly, the allegation of unreasonable sentencing by Defendant 4 and the prosecutor is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Of the judgment below, as to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act relating to the non-permanent measures taken by Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, on March 2, 200, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and the judgment of the court below is again decided as follows, as to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act relating to the support of the remuneration organization by Defendants 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Since the appeal by the defendant 4 and prosecutor against the above defendant and the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2, 3, and the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion among the judgment below are without merit, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition to the deletion of Paragraph (2) (Class 12 through 17 pages 14, 12, 17, 17), and Paragraph (6) (Class 22, 19, 25, and 6) of the judgment of the court below, the "Attached List of Crimes (Attachment 2)" in 20, 12, and 12 shall be changed to the "attached List of Crimes" in the judgment of the court below, and the facts constituting the crime of the court below are identical to the facts constituting the judgment of the court below. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 369

[Obstruction of Execution by Fraudulent Means (Defendants)]

위 범죄사실에 대한 증거의 요지는, ‘1. ◆◆◆심리전 활동 직무감찰 계획(순번 1765)’을 ‘1. ◆◆◆심리전 활동 직무감찰 계획(순번 1765)(피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4, 피고인 5, 피고인 7, 피고인 8에 대하여)’으로, ’1. ◆◆◆심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인(순번 1766)‘을 ’1. ◆◆◆심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인(순번(1766)(피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4, 피고인 5, 피고인 7, 피고인 8에 대하여)’로, ‘1. 검찰 압수수색 대비 리허설(순번 1768)’을 ‘1. 검찰 압수수색 대비 리허설(순번 1768)(피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4, 피고인 5, 피고인 7, 피고인 8에 대하여)’로, ‘1. 검찰 압수수색 리허설(1차 4.29)시 강조사항(순번 1769)’을 ’1. 검찰 압수수색 리허설(1차 4.29)시 강조사항(순번 1769)(피고인 1, 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4, 피고인 5, 피고인 7, 피고인 8에 대하여)‘으로 각 주12) 변경하고, ‘1. 항소심 증인 공소외 17의 법정진술’을 추가하는 외에는 원심판결의 해당란 기재와 같으므로, 형사소송법 제369조 에 따라 이를 그대로 인용한다.

【Perjury】 (Defendants)

The summary of the evidence of the above crime is as follows: “1. Nonindicted Party 17’s statement at the appellate court: “1. - one copy of the suspect interrogation protocol (Nonindicted Party 7) on May 2, 2013; “- one copy of the suspect interrogation protocol on May 3, 2013 (Nonindicted Party 6); “- one copy of the suspect interrogation protocol on May 4, 2013 (Nonindicted Party 1285); “- one copy of the suspect interrogation protocol on May 4, 2017; - one copy of the suspect interrogation protocol on May 6, 2013 (No. 1285; No. 1286; No. 1281; No. 291, Oct. 17, 2013; and one copy of the suspect interrogation protocol on May 6, 2013 (No. 1286); and one copy of the suspect interrogation protocol on May 16, 2013 (No. 9).

[Witness] (Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6)

The gist of the evidence of the above crime is as stated in the corresponding column of the lower judgment, except for adding “1.1. Nonindicted 17’s legal statement as witness of the appellate court and “1.1. Nonindicted 49’s legal statement as witness of the appellate court,” and thus, the summary of the evidence is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Preparation of False Official Document related to Fact-finding and Uttering of False Official Document] ( Defendants 4, 5, and 6)

The summary of the evidence of the above crime is as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the addition of “non-indicted 17’s legal statement of the witness at the appellate court,” and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

【Preparation of False Official Document related to Report Materials and Uttering of False Official Document】

The summary of the evidence of the above facts constituting the crime is as follows: “1. - 1. - 1. 23:00 of the Seocho Police Station Braziling (Intermediate Investigation Results) and 1. - one copy of the output of the website of the Suwon Police Station (No. 1113)” and “1. - 1. - 1. - 1. 577,1060 of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No1998 (No. 609)” and “1. - 1. 609 of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No1998 reversed and remanded (No. 1710)” are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the addition of “the content of Nonindicted 7’s activity list (No. 1710).”

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 7

Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Code (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means), Articles 152(1), 31(1), and 30 of the Criminal Code (the point of the perjury and the whole of them), respectively.

B. Defendants 4, 5, and 6

Articles 137, 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means), 152(1), 31(1), 30 of the Criminal Act (including the point of perjury and each of them), 155(2) and (1), 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the witness flight), 227, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the preparation of false official documents related to fact-finding), 229, 227, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the use of false official documents related to fact-finding), 229, 227, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of false official documents related to fact-finding)

C. Defendant 8

Articles 137, 30 (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means), 152 (1), 31 (1), 30 (the point of the perjury, including the point of the perjury) of each Criminal Act, Articles 227, 30 (the point of preparing false official documents related to news materials) of each Criminal Act, Articles 229, 227, and 30 (the point of exercising false official documents related to news materials) of each Criminal Act, Articles 229, 227, and 30 (the point of exercising false official documents related to news materials) of each Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (At least 16 of the Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means)

1. Selection of punishment;

In regard to the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, the crime of aiding and abetting perjury, the crime of aiding and abetting Witnesses, the preparation of false official documents, and the crime of uttering of false official documents, each imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 7

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment as to Non-Indicted 13 who is the most serious offense and offense)

B. Defendants 4, 5, and 6

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Inquiries on False Documents Related to Reference for Criminal Facts, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes Concerning Reference for Criminal Facts, Punishment and Character of Crimes)

C. Defendant 8

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning the Uttering of Public Document prepared on March 18, 2013)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 8: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Conditions favorable to the Reasons for both punishment)

Common Sentencing

1. Fundamental nature and evaluation of crimes;

The case at the time of Non-Indicted 2’s president of the NIS was a serious criminal act detrimental to the foundation of democracy and constitutional value by involved in political neutrality and involvement in election in violation of the political neutrality obligations stipulated in the Constitution, which are set forth in the Constitution, which is a power organ with a broad organization and enormous budget. After his resignation, Non-Indicted 2 was the president and senior executives of the NIS, who form a new command division of the NIS, and Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 were employed in the prosecution for a long time, and were dispatched to the NIS. If the Defendants were in the process of investigation and trial in an objective and fair manner, the NIS could have been renewed as an information organization under the people’s support and trust through the reflection and innovation of the past errors.

However, the Defendants committed a series of crimes in this case, which systematically interfere with the investigation and trial of the NIS case, on the basis of the possibility that the organization may suffer disadvantage by reducing the function of the NIS, and the possibility that it may be borne by the newly launched government, if the investigation of the prosecution is expanded and the previous formation of the case is revealed.

Furthermore, the crime of this case was committed by several employees of the NIS who are in a strict relationship with the organization of the NIS based on the recruitment of the direction and dispatch officers, including the president of the NIS, and the direction of the crime was made at the level of the organization of the NIS. Accordingly, the crime of this case has a significant adverse effect on the investigation and trial of the case of the chief commissioner of the NIS.

2. Evaluation of individual crimes;

A. Obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means

The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means was committed by changing the office section into the office section in preparation for the search and seizure, pretending to be the whole place of the search and seizure, making a new document for the purpose of search and seizure, keeping sled fish as if it were the existing document, and refusing to submit evidentiary materials, not the state secrets, which were kept inside the NIS, and thus making a prior duplicing theory was also conducted in accordance with a secret plan in the process. This is not only a concern for the execution of the search and seizure warrant issued by the court and the execution of the prosecution’s official duties, but also the method of committing the crime is very old and highly likely to be subject to criticism.

(b) A perjury;

In the case of the hearing leaflets of the NIS, the activities of the NIS employees were revealed through posting comments, comments on comments, or tweets or tweets, etc. posted by the employees belonging to the NIS on the Internet website. In order to clarify whether the NIS employees are systematically involved, the legal statement of the NIS employees was very important. The crime of this case was committed for the aforementioned purpose, and the crime of this case was committed by aiding and abetting a large number of NIS employees to feel a truth, thereby obstructing the discovery of truth, and further, the harm and injury is greater because the above-mentioned teachers were organized by the command division of the NIS employees with strict standing.

Although the Defendants are asserting that they provided legal advice to the NIS employees present as witnesses, they are difficult to find out any reports prepared without being able to do so in the course of a trial.

(c) Preparation and events of false official documents related to witness escape and inquiry about fact;

The failure of Nonindicted Party 1 to send out a business trip to a foreign country as a witness according to the plan that was adopted as a witness is not only an act detrimental to the discovery of truth, which is the core of the trial, but also a situation where a state agency was satisfyed in the criminal justice process. During that process, the national budget was wasted in an unnecessary way, and Nonindicted Party 1’s freedom of movement of residence was also infringed.

The fact-finding reply related to Nonindicted 1 is a crime committed in the extension line of the witness fee, and the national information agency with public confidence gives a false reply to the fact-finding by the court, and the quality of the crime is not very good.

Sentencing by Defendant

1. Defendant 1

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

The sentencing criteria shall not apply because they are in each commercial concurrent relationship.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

In case of concurrent crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are set, compliance with the lowest limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for perjury crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set shall be observed for not less than 10 months.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant was appointed to the Vice-General, a senior executive officer of the police who held office in the police for a long time, and was appointed to the second Vice-General, a senior executive officer of the NIS. While having been aware of the importance of investigation and trial procedures through police experience, the Defendant served as a key and pivotal role in the instant crime that systematically interferes with investigation and trial as the head of T/F team. Nevertheless, up to the appellate court, the Defendant consistently denied all the facts involved in the instant crime and avoided liability.

However, the defendant is also deemed to have caused the crime of this case by being the head of T/F team at the direction of the defendant 7, who is the president of the NIS.

2. Defendant 2

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Since each commercial concurrent relationship is a relationship, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

In case of concurrent crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are set, compliance with the lowest limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for perjury crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set shall be observed for not less than 10 months.

(c) Determination of sentence;

피고인은 오랜 기간 국정원에서 공직생활을 하였고, 국정원이 수집한 국내정보를 통하여 각종 대응전략을 수립하는 국정원의 핵심부서 중 하나인 ●●●●국의 국장으로 재직하면서 이 사건 범행에 가담하였다. ●●●●국의 역할과 회의 결과를 정리한 보고서가 피고인을 통하여 작성된 것으로 확인되는 점 등에 비추어 피고인이 간부진 T/F에서 담당한 역할이 결코 미약하지 않다. 그럼에도 피고인은 일관되게 자신의 책임을 회피하고 있다.

However, considering the deceptive order according to the strict statement of the NIS, there is room to view that the defendant's participation in the crime of this case was in accordance with the direction of the Director and the Vice Director of the NIS.

3. Defendant 3

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Since each commercial concurrent relationship is a relationship, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

In case of concurrent crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are set, compliance with the lowest limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for perjury crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set shall be observed for not less than 10 months.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, at a long time, was a public official life at the NIS, and was in office as the Director-General of the Republic of Korea, one of the core departments of the NIS, which collect and publish domestic information through many I/O, and participated in the instant crime. The role of the Defendant in T/F, who was in office, is not inconsistent. Nevertheless, the Defendant is consistently evading his/her responsibility.

However, considering the fact that the NIS appears to have participated according to the instructions of the superior in the course of the fraudulent order of the superior.

4. Defendant 4

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to six months; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Since each commercial concurrent relationship is a relationship, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) The crime of aiding and abetting a witness

[Determination of Punishment] Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness> Type 1 (Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness)

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is extremely poor, and evidence destruction, etc. has an effect on the result of another person's criminal or disciplinary case.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

(iv)Offences of preparing false official documents and of uttering of false official documents;

[Determination of Punishment] Preparation and Alteration of False Public Document Form 2 (Positive Purpose)

[Special Person under Way] A serious social and economic harm is caused by a crime.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 2 years and 6 months

5) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

Inasmuch as the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent, the lower limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for the preparation of false official documents and the display of false official documents shall be observed.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, at a long time, was a public official life in the NIS, and was in office as the head of the department of the psychological team, which is the pertinent department of the NIS case. In particular, the Defendant, either directly or through the staff of the psychological team, took part in the instant crime. Nevertheless, the Defendant consistently avoided his responsibility, and furthermore, the Defendant appears to have been responsible for the employees of the former and present psychological team.

However, considering the deceptive order according to the strict statement of the NIS, the defendant's participation in the crime of this case is also an aspect according to the direction of the upper court.

5. Defendant 5

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to six years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Since each commercial concurrent relationship is a relationship, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) The crime of aiding and abetting a witness

[Determination of Punishment] Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness> Type 1 (Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness)

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is extremely poor, and evidence destruction, etc. has an effect on the result of another person's criminal or disciplinary case.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

(iv)Offences of preparing false official documents and of uttering of false official documents;

[Determination of Punishment] Preparation and Alteration of False Public Document Form 2 (Positive Purpose)

[Special Person under Way] A serious social and economic harm is caused by a crime.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 2 years and 6 months

5) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

Inasmuch as the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent, the lower limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for the preparation of false official documents and the display of false official documents shall be observed.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant served as a public prosecutor for a long time, and was dispatched to the NIS and was in charge of the duties called the head of ○○ Office while maintaining the status of the public prosecutor, and thus, in collusion with the head of the NIS and the executive officers of the NIS, engaged in the instant crime.

However, since the NIS employees are not subject to the direction and supervision by the head of the relevant agency (Article 10 of the NISA), it may be deemed that they participated in the crime in accordance with the direction and policy of the president of the NIS, etc. (Article 10 of the NISA), and the fact that most of the facts are consistently recognized in the course of the investigation and the attitude of recognizing their responsibilities as a substitute is recognized, etc.,

6. Defendant 6

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to six years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Since each commercial concurrent relationship is a relationship, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) The crime of aiding and abetting a witness

[Determination of Punishment] Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness> Type 1 (Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness)

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is extremely poor, and evidence destruction, etc. has an effect on the result of another person's criminal or disciplinary case.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

(iv)Offences of preparing false official documents and of uttering of false official documents;

[Determination of Punishment] Preparation and Alteration of False Public Document Form 2 (Positive Purpose)

[Special Person under Way] A serious social and economic harm is caused by a crime.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 2 years and 6 months

5) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

Inasmuch as the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent, the lower limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for the preparation of false official documents and the display of false official documents shall be observed.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The defendant has served as a prosecutor for a short period of time, and in addition, through the work experience of the public security department, he was well aware of the role and duty of the NIS, but was involved in the crime of this case, and in particular, performed a key role in formulating and implementing a specific crime implementation plan in accordance with the general guidelines of T/F with the executive staff.

However, unlike other co-defendants, the defendant could not evaluate the status of the whole crime like other co-defendants because he/she performed a general role of the practical team, and there is room to regard that he/she participated in the crime in accordance with the upper order and policy within the organization of the NIS.

7. Defendant 7

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Since each commercial concurrent relationship is a relationship, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

In case of concurrent crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are set, compliance with the lowest limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for perjury crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set shall be observed for not less than 10 months.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, as the president of the NIS having the authority to exercise overall control over the NIS’s affairs and to manage and supervise the employees, has a duty to direct the NIS to investigate and fairly respond to the instant case in an objective and fair manner in order to enable the NIS to correct and properly interpret the errors in the past. Nevertheless, the Defendant, without properly grasping the nature of the case, provided for the purpose of protecting the organization without properly understanding the nature of the case, and provided for the reduction of the nature of the case, thereby allowing the NIS executives, dispatched public prosecutors, and employees of the NIS to commit the instant crime in which they participated in the organization. Nevertheless, the Defendant is consistent with the attitude of avoiding liability while denying his involvement. Considering the status of the Defendant as the president of the NIS and the Defendant who is ultimately responsible for the instant crime, it is inevitable to strictly impose punishment on the Defendant.

8. Defendant 8

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

Since each commercial concurrent relationship is a relationship, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Types] The First Category (Perjury) of the No. 1 (Perjury) Area of Special Leave

[Special Persons under Guard] Where a perjury has affected the result of a new illness or trial, the teacher of the person under command.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 4 years

3) Crimes of preparing false official documents and of uttering of false official documents

[Determination of Punishment] Preparation and Alteration of False Official Document Form 1 (negative)

[Special Person] Where there is a reason to take into account the motive for committing a crime;

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one month to eight months

4) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

In case of concurrent crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are set, compliance with the lowest limit of the sentencing range of the recommendations for perjury crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set shall be observed for not less than 10 months.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, at a long time, was a public official life at the NIS, and was in office as the head of the group and the delegate, and was involved in the instant crime. The Defendant prepared and distributed news reports contrary to objective facts, thereby impairing the truth and infringing on the right of citizens to know. Nevertheless, the Defendant consistently avoided his responsibility.

However, considering the fact that some of the crimes appear to have been involved by the superior's instructions in the deceptive order of the upper and the fact that the defendant seems to have been bound to take into account the position of the organization as a representative.

1. Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act in relation to the Defendants’ non-affiliated measures

A. Summary of the facts charged

As to the documents, such as the recording of 21 transcripts, in collusion with Nonindicted 3, which are the evidence related to the case at the time of investigation, the Defendants: (a) the organization, location, and personnel of the NIS, the state secrets, or confidential matters concerning the state secrets or duties, which are not likely to seriously affect the national security or to undermine the national security, and thus are not legitimate objects of non-disclosure; (b) however, Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5, etc., in consultation with Nonindicted 2, the former president of the NIS and Nonindicted 5, etc., taken measures against the employees of the NIS, such as violation of the NISA against the NISA, against the employees of the former president of the NIS and the former president of the NIS; and (c) submitted them to the prosecution to commit an act without any duty, by abusing the official authority of the NIS;

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen above Ⅱ.3b. As such, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

2. Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act relating to the financial support to Defendant 3’s remuneration organizations;

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) Abuse of authority in relation to the financial support of remuneration organizations through △△△.

피고인 3은 2013. 4.경 대정부전복국 □□단장 공소외 54, 2014. 4.경 후임 □□단장 공소외 23을 통해 □□단 소속 1처장 공소외 51에게, ◇◇을 통해 ‘대한민국재향▷▷▷’(이하 ‘▷▷▷’라 한다) 등 12개 보수단체에 자금이 지원될 수 있도록 조치하라는 취지로 지시하고, 공소외 51은 ◇◇ 담당 I/O인 공소외 19에게 ◇◇으로 하여금 위 보수단체에 대한 자금지원을 요청하도록 지시하였다. 공소외 19로부터 자금지원이 필요한 보수단체명과 금액 등이 기재된 쪽지를 건네 받은 ◇◇ 미래전략실 기획팀장 공소외 20 등은 국정원의 보수단체에 대한 자금지원 요청에 응할 의무가 없었음에도 불구하고, 국내외 정보 수집 등 업무, 보안 및 수사 업무 등의 권한을 가진 국정원의 요청을 거절할 경우 ◇◇이 유·무형의 불이익을 입게 될 가능성을 우려한 나머지 그 요청에 응하여 그 무렵 ◁◁◁ 전무 공소외 55에게 ◇◇ 자금을 ◁◁◁을 통하여 지원할 수 있는지 검토해 달라는 취지로 말하였고, 이에 공소외 55는 그 무렵 ◁◁◁회관 회의실에서 사회협찬심의위원회를 개최하여 우선 ◁◁◁의 예산으로 위 보수단체들에 대한 자금을 지원하기로 결정하고, 이에 따라 ◁◁◁은 2013. 8. 1.경 ▷▷▷에 5,000만 원을 교부하였으며, ◇◇은 그 무렵 ◁◁◁이 선지급한 지원금과 같은 금액인 5,000만 원을 회비 명목으로 ◁◁◁에 교부한 것을 비롯하여 2013. 6. 19.경부터 2014. 6. 18.경까지 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(3) -◇◇ 기재와 같이 총 12개 보수단체에 합계 7억 9,000만 원을 지급하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 3 conspiredd with Nonindicted 51 in sequence, thereby allowing executives and employees of △△△△△△△, including Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 56, to pay a total of KRW 790 million to the 12 remuneration organizations.

2) Abuse of authority in relation to financial support for remuneration organizations through △△△.

피고인 3은 2014. 2.경 공소외 23을 통해 공소외 51에게, ☆☆(관계회사 포함, 이하 같음)를 통해 ‘대한민국▼▼▼▼▼▼총연합회’ 등 4개 보수단체에 합계 2억 원이 지원될 수 있도록 조치하라는 취지로 지시하고, 공소외 51은 ☆☆ 담당 I/O인 공소외 52에게 보수단체명과 지원 금액이 기재되어 있는 쪽지를 건네주면서 “BH의 관심사항인데, ☆☆로부터 보수단체에 자금지원을 할 수 있도록 해봐라.”라고 지시하고, 공소외 52는 2014. 3.경 서울 종로구 (주소 생략) ☆☆ 본사 건물에 있는 ☆☆ 그룹 부사장 공소외 53의 사무실에서 위 공소외 53에게 자금지원이 필요한 보수단체명과 금액이 기재되어 있는 쪽지를 건네면서 “BH의 관심사항인데, 쪽지에 기재된 보수단체에 자금지원을 좀 해 달라.”라는 취지로 말하였다.

공소외 53은 위와 같이 공소외 52로부터 보수단체에 대한 자금지원 요청을 받고 ☆☆ 그룹 전무 공소외 57에게, 공소외 57은 성명불상의 실무담당자에게 각각 공소외 52의 요청사항을 전달하였고, 위 실무담당자는 국정원의 보수단체에 대한 자금지원 요청에 응할 의무가 없음에도 불구하고, 국내외 정보 수집 등 업무, 보안 및 수사 업무 등의 권한을 가진 국정원의 요청을 거절할 경우 ☆☆가 유·무형의 불이익을 입게 될 가능성을 우려한 나머지 그 요청에 응하여 2014. 4. 3. ‘대한민국▼▼▼▼▼▼총연합회’에 5,000만 원을 교부한 것을 비롯하여 같은 날 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(4) - ☆☆ 기재와 같이 총 4개 단체에 합계 2억 원을 지급하였다.

As a result, Defendant 3, in collusion with Nonindicted 51, had the executive officers and employees of the NIS △△△△△△△△△△△, including Nonindicted 53 and Nonindicted 57, pay a total of KRW 200 million to four remuneration organizations.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged against Defendant 3 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in Section 2.7.B. As such, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and publicly announced the summary of the judgment pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jin-hee

1) The written opinion, etc. submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal.

(2) Nonindicted 38, who participated in the search and seizure, stated in the court below that “In the event of a toilet, the NIS employee could not return to another floor or another office in mind as much as the NIS employee would accompany.”

3) Article 11(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act provides that “The Director, Deputy Director, or other employees shall not arrest or detain any person without going through legal procedures, or allow any other institution, organization, or person to perform an act without any duty, or interfere with the exercise of any right by any other institution, organization, or person, by abusing their official authority.” Article 19 of the National Intelligence Service Act provides that “Any person who arrests or confines any person in violation of Article 11(1), or causes any other institution, organization, or person to perform an act without any duty, or interferes with the exercise of any right by any other institution, organization, or person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years and suspension of qualification for not more than seven years.” In the case of a crime of

주4) 즉, ‘개인 경력 등에 관한 신문에는 성실하게 답변’→‘원내 경력사항 등 신원사항에 대해서는 상세히 답변’, ‘심리전단의 정확한 조직 구성, 인원 배치 등에 대해서는 국가안보를 이유로 적극적 진술은 피하되, 언론 보도 등을 토대로 검찰에서 신문해 올 경우 “어느 정도 사실에 부합하는 것으로 보인다”는 정도로 소극적으로 인정’→‘- 상세한 내용에 대해서는 묵비 - (다만, 언론자료를 토대로 “3개 팀, 75명” 등의 내용에 대한 물음에) 실제와 유사하나, 팀별 임무는 말할 수 없다고 밝힘’, ‘- 심리전단의 전신으로 ◆◆◆활동을 한 전담팀은 참여정부 시절인 2005. 3. 편성되었다는 점은 명확히 진술 - 그 후 MB 정부, 현 정부에 이르기까지의 개편 내역, 2010. 12.경 심리전단에서 부서만 1급으로 상향된 점 등은 개괄적으로 진술’→‘참여정부 시절부터 ◆◆◆심리전 업무가 시작되었으며, 조직 확대는 북한의 ◆◆◆활동이 강화된 것에 따른 조치로 알고 있다고 진술’, ‘직원 개개인의 활동 내용, 형태에 대해서는 단장으로서는 “알지 못한다”고 주장’→‘직원들의 구체적 활동 양상에 대해서는 알 수 없었다고 진술’과 같이 위 ‘대응기조 보고’의 내용과 공소외 14의 검찰 진술 내용이 주요 부분에서 일치한다.

(5) Specifically, around May 2, 2013, Nonindicted 7 stated, at the prosecutor’s investigation, that “the method in which matters to be communicated are different. Each day shall be transmitted” (Evidence No. 33, No. 1410 pages), Nonindicted 17, and the prosecutor’s investigation conducted two times on May 4, 2013, and May 6, 2013, preparing for the subjects received through the head’s direction, speech, and team leader posted on the interior network. In addition, Nonindicted 7, as to the subjects coming from the direction system, contents of two to three lines are different. On the other hand, Nonindicted 7 sent instructions including the subjects, and written several texts in each of them. Nonindicted 31 to 36, each day, including the Internet bulletin No. 23 to 14, and most of the contents of Nonindicted 15 to 36, including the contents of the Internet No. 35, the content of the direction, direction, and statement are included in the Internet page No. 1 to 3635.

주6) 25,000,500원으로 ◀◀지부에 공작 관련 예산이 없어 예산처로부터 해당 예산만큼 책정조정을 받아 출장을 시행하였다.

Note 7) Defendant 4 asserted that he was not in his jurisdiction against such 6’s inquiry, and Defendant 6 stated in the court below that Defendant 4’s speech to that effect was not memory.

(8) Defendant 6 asserted that the phrase “to thoroughly prepare for the examination of witness” was premised on Nonindicted 1’s attendance at the examination of witness, and thus, Defendant 6 asserted that he reflects that Nonindicted 1 would not participate in the examination of witness. However, in light of the aforementioned Nonindicted 1’s statement, etc., it can be known that Nonindicted 1’s attendance of witness and his overseas business trip was decided after the date from April 16, 2013 to the main office, and thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

(9) Defendant 6’s assertion that the witness also cannot be established only with the absence of the witness twice in the trial. However, in light of the fact that the witness’s application was revoked and the fact inquiry was made due to the absence of the witness, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

Note 10) This replys from the NIS to the “documents, such as the bills, reports, etc. related to Nonindicted 1’s overseas business trip”.

Note 11) Nonindicted 1 stated in the court below that there was no memory as to the reply to the fact-finding in the court below, and that he was in the sojourn in Russia at the time, and thus he could not be specifically involved in the reply.

주12) 피고인 6은 ◆◆◆심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인(순번 1766)을 증거로 사용함에 부동의하였으므로 증거능력이 없다고 주장한다. 그런데 원심은 피고인 6이 각 부동의한 ◆◆◆심리전 활동 직무감찰 계획(순번 1765), ◆◆◆심리전 활동 적법성 여부 사실관계 확인(순번 1766), 검찰 압수수색 대비 리허설(순번 1768), 검찰 압수수색 리허설(1차 4.29)시 강조사항(순번 1769)을 피고인 6에 대하여 증거로 채택하지 않았음에도, 이를 피고인 6의 위계공무집행방해의 점에 대한 증거로 거시하였다[피고인 6에 대한 원심의 ‘증거목록(증거서류 등)’에 원심 제20회 공판기일에 위 각 증거를 조사하였다는 취지의 기재가 있는바 이는 오기임이 명백하다]. 그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 나머지 증거능력 있는 증거만으로 피고인 6의 이 부분 공소사실을 넉넉히 유죄로 인정할 수 있으므로, 여기에서 위 각 증거를 피고인 6에 대한 증거로 하지 않는다는 취지만을 밝혀둔다.

Defendant 13) Defendant 4 asserts that since Nonindicted 17 refused to testify at the court of original instance, each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 17 by the prosecution against Nonindicted 17 is inadmissible as it is not admitted as evidence. However, documents or articles on which the Defendant consented to be admitted as evidence may be admitted as evidence (Article 318(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, it is admissible as evidence when it is admitted as genuine (Article 318(1) of the same Act). A copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 17 (2) of the prosecution (3) and the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 17 (3) of the prosecution (1572) (3) of the prosecutor's office (3) which the lower court presented as evidence of guilt against Defendant 4 as evidence on the third trial date of the lower court, Defendant 4 consented that Defendant 4 is admissible as evidence (Article 1, 392,42

14) Defendant 4 asserts that each prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 5 against Defendant 5 is inadmissible. However, the lower court determined that each prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 5 against Defendant 5 was inadmissible as evidence on the ground that Co-Defendant 4 and his defense counsel’s cross-examination right was not guaranteed, and that the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 5 was not admissible as evidence, and only Defendant 5 who consented to the use of the protocol as evidence was admitted as evidence for conviction. Therefore, Defendant 4’s above assertion is without merit. Although Defendant 4 asserts that the prosecutor’s protocol against Nonindicted 28 and the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 3 was inadmissible as evidence, the lower court determined that each of the statements was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and that it was admissible as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant 4 is without merit.

Note 15) 15) Defendant 6 argues that since Defendant 6 consented to the use of a business trip draft and a report (No. 1720) as evidence among the replys to the request for investigation cooperation (as of November 23, 2017), it is inadmissible. However, Defendant 6 consented to the use of the above evidence as evidence on the second trial date of the court below, and it is evident that the above evidence has been adopted and investigated as evidence (the first right and 650 pages of the trial record). Accordingly, Defendant 6’s above assertion is without merit.

If an act of assault or intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. In a case where the above act of assault or intimidation was committed at the same time at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009).