The case where he expressed his intention of deliberation on the training of the reserve forces and did not immediately constitute Article 4 of the Antipublic Law.

The Defendant stated that “I would be in violation of the training of the reserve forces. I would see that I would see that I would go against the training of the reserve forces. I would go beyond the North Korea, and if there is no evidence to see that I would go against the intention to benefit the North Korea of the anti-government organization, it shall not be deemed that I would fall under Article 4(1) of the anti-public law.

Article 4(1) of the Antipublic Law

A

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 73No4585 delivered on September 25, 1973

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The main point of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant's words stated in the indictment against the defendant are illegal, even though they were nothing more than one piece of words, they were punished as a violation of anti-public law.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts charged against the defendant that, at around 14:00 on April 4, 1973, the defendant used meals such as E and F, a kind of friendship with D working at D offices of judicial affairs branch like the defendant, as the defendant, at the time when the defendant worked in D offices of judicial affairs branch, as the defendant, the defendant, and maintained the judgment of the court below that the defendant was sentenced to suspension of qualification for the defendant in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the anti-government organization, on the ground that "I would be good that the training of the reserve forces would be violated. It will be good that I would go against the training of the reserve forces". The defendant would go beyond North Korea at this time to go against the principle of good faith. It is reasonable to view that the defendant's act constitutes imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the anti-public law and thus, constitutes suspension of qualifications for the first year.

However, if the evidence listed in the above judgment of the court of first instance is compared with the records, it can be recognized that the defendant scam to the above purport (However, it is not simply that the defendant would throw away beyond North Korea, but rather that he would throw away beyond the "mangy"). In doing so, as recognized by the court below, there is no evidence to see that the defendant scam to the criticism of North Korea's leader against the reserve forces of the Republic of Korea, as recognized by the court below, or that the defendant scam to the false publicity of North Korea's leader, which is called the ground scambling which can be well scambling, and as a result, there is no evidence to see that the defendant scam to the above purport,

It can be seen that the defendant's above speech was made at the time of the Doluri and the above original trial itself. As such, the defendant's above speech was made at the restaurant room where the defendant had already been notified of the training of the reserve forces and the police officer found a restaurant and took a speech about the training of the reserve forces, and the following day after this speech was made on a public holiday, and therefore, the statement about natural tourism was made at the time of the public holiday, and in general, it was not shown that the defendant could easily go through the public holiday, and it was not only by any procedure but also by the fact that the defendant has prepared or prepared a specific plan for such tourism. In light of all objective circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above speech of the defendant's above speech in the reserve forces training was merely the fact that the ordinary criticism of the reserve forces in the training had not been passed by the expression.

If so, it cannot be said that the criticism on the training of the reserve forces above falls under Article 4 of the Anti-Public Law. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of this Article, or the crime of illegality recognized without legitimate evidence. Thus, the judgment below is reversed by accepting the defendant's appeal and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)