An incomplete hearing on the grounds for revoking the decision to hold a public prosecution under Article 16 (3) of the National Security Act;

The prosecution against the person who has suspended the prosecution without due cause (Article 12 of the Rules on the Observation of the Public Prosecutor) is revoked and the prosecution filed against the person who has suspended the prosecution is unlawful.

Article 16(3) of the National Security Act, and Article 12 of the Rules on the Observation of Public Prosecution Deferments

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 67No48 delivered on May 2, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67No48 delivered on May 2, 1967

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal that discussed the illegality of the prosecution against the Defendants by the public defender system without any justifiable reason to revoke the ruling of withholding the prosecution against the Defendants.

According to the provisions of Article 16 of the National Security Act, a prosecutor may withhold a public prosecution against a person who commits a crime under this Act, taking into account the situation under Article 51 of the Criminal Act (section 1), and when a person who has been granted the deferment of a public prosecution under the preceding paragraph has passed without filing a public prosecution for two years (Paragraph 2), the person who has been granted the deferment of a public prosecution may cancel the deferment of a public prosecution when he/she violates the regulations on surveillance and news report. This Rule provides that the Minister of Justice (Paragraph 3) shall prescribe, and Article 12 of the Rules on Observation of the Public Prosecution, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice under Article 16 (3) of the same Act, provides that the decision of deferment of a public prosecution may be cancelled without any justifiable reason for cancellation of the decision of deferment of a public prosecution under the above listed statutes, and the public prosecution

According to the records, with respect to the grounds for revocation of the revocation of the decision to withhold public prosecution against the Defendants, the Defendants did not have any grounds for revocation of the revocation of the suspension of public prosecution under Article 12 of the Regulations on the Observation of the Materne, and in particular, the Defendants did not receive an instruction from the accomplices to monitor and report on the residential movement, etc. by one of the accomplices. The court below should further deliberate and decide on whether the decision to withhold public prosecution is legitimate by examining whether the decision to suspend public prosecution was lawfully revoked on the grounds of the grounds for revocation of the revocation of the decision to suspend public prosecution against the Defendant. However, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by comparing the nature of the revocation of the decision to suspend public prosecution with the legal nature

The appeal by the Defendants and the defense counsel on this issue is justified.

Therefore, we decide to reverse the original judgment and decide as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in accordance with Articles 390, 391, and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-dong, the last Ma-man