The case holding that the suspension of qualifications for a term of not more than seven years, which is the maximum term of imprisonment as specified in the meeting crime, shall not be imposed concurrently where the suspension of qualifications is concurrently imposed pursuant to Article 16 of the National Security Act Article 11 of the same Act, in the event that a crime of Article 98 of the Criminal Act, Article 98 of the Criminal Act, and Article 5 of the Anti-Public Law, etc. are punished concurrently for a crime of secret-espionage, leakage of military secrets, etc., and Article 98 of the Criminal Act does not provide for suspension of qualifications

When punishing concurrent crimes, such as the crime of Article 98 of the Criminal Act and the crime of meeting under Article 5 of the Act on the Prevention of Spy and the Disclosure of Military Secrets, the crime of Article 98 of the Criminal Act does not include any provision of suspension of qualifications concurrently in the crime of Article 98 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of meeting Article 5 of the Anti-Public Law, the suspension of qualifications may be concurrently imposed pursuant to Article 16 of the same Act and Article 11 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 60). Therefore, suspension of qualifications shall be

Article 5 of the Anti-Public Law, Article 16 of the Anti-Public Law, Article 11 of the National Security Act

Defendant 1 and five others

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No283 delivered on July 30, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 70No283 delivered on July 30, 1970

The part of the original judgment pertaining to Defendant Han-tae is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant Han Young-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

(1) We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant Han Young-gu and defense counsel.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defendant is that the court below's decision of the court below in addition to the defense counsel's grounds of appeal is unreasonable because the court below's decision of the court below is too excessive, or all materials which are the conditions of the punishment lawfully investigated by the court below are determined based on the records, so the court below's decision is too excessive, and the arguments are groundless.

(2) Each of the grounds of appeal No. 1 of the defendant Han-sung and his defense counsel Kim Hong, and the current net iron is examined.

However, if the evidence cited by the judgment of the first instance cited by the original judgment is examined by comparing the records, it is possible to sufficiently recognize the facts constituting the offense, such as divulgence of military secrets, which the original judgment recognized, in the original judgment, there is no mistake of facts in the original judgment, and there is no error of law interpretation. Therefore, the arguments are without merit.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below recognized Defendant 2's crime under Article 98 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act and Article 5 (1) of the Anti-Public Law, such as a counter-espionage assistance, leakage of military secrets, and meeting with a person who was ordered by anti-government organizations, and recognized the crime under Article 98 (1) and Article 5 (1) of the Anti-Public Law, and sentenced Defendant 2 to 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes resulting from the crime of leakage of military secrets, the nature of the crime and the court, and held that the suspension of qualification such as the imprisonment

However, since the crime of Article 98 of the Criminal Act on the espionage and the Disclosure of Military Secrets does not concurrently stipulate the suspension of qualification for the defendant, the suspension of qualification should be imposed concurrently, like the application of law by the court below, Article 11 of the National Security Act. However, according to Article 11 of the National Security Act which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 16 of the Public Law, when sentencing imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of this Act, suspension of qualification for the defendant shall be imposed concurrently for the crime of Article 5 (1) of the above Anti-Public Law, and suspension of qualification for the defendant shall be limited to the crime of meeting under Article 5 (1) of the above Anti-Public Law and shall be not more than seven years. However, even though the court below's suspension of qualification for the defendant was imposed concurrently, it cannot be said that the court below erred in applying the interpretation and application of law, and such illegality affected the result of the judgment. Accordingly, in this regard, the reversal of

(3) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant leapson and defense counsel.

The reason for the defendant's appeal is to deny the facts constituting a crime which the original judgment recognized, and to change the above circumstances. However, in this case where the judgment of the suspension of the execution of punishment was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and five years, it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. The defense counsel's appeal does not constitute a so-called crime and even if it does not so, the court below's sentencing is excessive. However, it is reasonable for the court below to have known that the punishment is mitigated for the defendant's act of filing a complaint against the leapony, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable and it does not constitute a crime. In this case, there is no ground for appeal due to the lack of legitimate grounds for appeal.

(4) Judgment of the grounds for appeal by Defendant Han Won-sik

The purport that it was erroneous in the original judgment because it was an inevitable act to authorize the defendant to receive the defendant's consent or to report the crime, or that such a assertion has not been justified in this case where the sentence was suspended, because it did not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

(5) Judgment of the grounds for appeal by Defendant Han Han-sik

The argument that there was a mistake in the original judgment by denying the fact that the original judgment had been admitted, does not have a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where the original judgment had been sentenced, and even after examining the records of the original judgment, there is no error in adopting evidence in the fact-finding by comparing the original judgment with the records, and it cannot be viewed that the original judgment applying Article 5 (1) of the Anti-Public Law to the defendant is illegal.

(6) The defendant Han-gu's grounds of appeal are examined.

It is true that there is a misunderstanding of facts in the original judgment that recognized the liability for the crime against the defendant who recommended the above-mentioned defendant to take the punishment. However, in this case where the sentence is harmful, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the above.

(7) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Han-sik.

The argument that there was a serious mistake in the original judgment by denying the crime corresponding to Articles 5 (1) and 7 of the Anti-Public Law, which has been admitted by the original judgment, on the grounds that the above defendant voluntarily surrenders himself to the Korean-style criminal defendant and kept money in custody in order to bring an accusation against the criminal investigation agency if he was paid in, and that he had dialogueed with the defendant and prevented his escape from his escape, does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal in this case, and even if the original judgment was exempted from punishment by comparing the record of the original judgment, it cannot be said that there was a misunderstanding of the rules of evidence regarding the preparation of evidence which was

On the contrary, without requiring any judgment on the defendant's own and his defense counsel Kim Hong, and the remaining grounds of appeal of the current net metal and on the grounds of appeal of the defendant's prison punishment, the part concerning the defendant's Han-kin type among the original judgment shall be reversed and remanded. Each appeal by the remaining defendants shall be all filed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)