Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs in relation to the crimes such as praises prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Anti-Public Law

The crime of obscenity, etc. as provided in Article 4(1) of the Anti-Public Act does not constitute a crime only with respect to the act of praiseing or taking advantage of, inter alia, anti-government organizations or their members or other members of the Republic of Korea or those of foreign countries.

Article 4 of the Antipublic Law

Supreme Court Decision 72Do99 delivered on June 26, 1972 (Kakadd 10190; Supreme Court Decision 20 ② ②-49; Decision Decision No. 4(15)1395 delivered on June 26, 197

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Daegu District Court of First Instance (70 High Court Decision 7150)

We reverse the original judgment.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and suspension of qualifications shall be concurrently imposed three years.

One hundred and sixty days of detention days before the original sentence shall be included in the original sentence.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the defendant's reason for appeal is that the non-indicted 1's speech was exceeded from his house, which is the non-indicted 1's request, and nurseed Byung. While the non-indicted 2 was the head of his house, he had been employed in the military unit, there was no other fact, and there was no other two times, and the method of transfer was in contact with loan, so it cannot be kept confidential, and the above two persons did not talk like the contents written in the indictment, and the prosecutor made a false statement without hearing the statement of the defendant and unilaterally prepared a written report of the court below, and the defendant was found guilty, and even if the non-indicted 1 stated that it was the same as the contents written in the indictment, it was not clear that the defendant did not have any purpose, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the non-indicted 2's act was committed, and thus, the defendant did not have any criminal intent or propaganda activities of the non-indicted 1, which were part of the defendant's testimony, and it should be acknowledged that the defendant's testimony and testimony were unlawful.

The lower court’s appeal on this point is reasonable, and the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the lower court’s decision is reversed and decided again by its members based on the Defendant’s appeal. In so doing, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal on this point is dismissed by the prosecutor’s appeal under Article 364(4) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The criminal facts and evidence theory against the defendant are the same as that of the court below, except that the defendant's partial statement at the party members and the testimony of the non-indicted 1, 2 and 3 as evidence are the same as that of the court below. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In contrast to the law, the court below held that all of the defendant's judgment in the court below corresponds to Article 4 (1) of the anti-public law. Since the defendant had a criminal record of the first head of the judgment in the judgment, the defendant has increased his punishment by Article 9-2 of the same Act with respect to each of the crimes listed in the judgment below, and choice of imprisonment for each of the crimes listed in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes listed in the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, and since the punishment for the crimes listed in Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50 (2) and (3) of the same Act is more severe punishment, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years within the scope of the aggravated punishment, and suspension of qualification shall be imposed concurrently by applying Article 16 of the anti-public law, Article 11 of the National Security Act, and 160 days out of the number of detention days prior to the judgment in the court below,

Judge Lee Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)