In Article 4 (1) of the anti-public law, the term "act detrimental to anti-government organization" means that the contents of the act can objectively become an interest of an anti-government organization, and the term "person who committed an act" means a person who has confirmed or do not have to be aware that it is an interest of an anti-state organization.

In Article 4 (1) of the anti-public law, the term "act of benefiting an anti-government organization" refers to an act of which contents can objectively benefit an anti-government organization, and a person who committed an act refers to an act of which contents can benefit an anti-government organization.

Article 4 of the Antipublic Law

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 70No638 delivered on November 19, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office shall be examined.

Article 4 (1) of the Anti-Public Act provides that "An act of praiseing and praiseing organizations of anti-state organizations" constitutes an objective benefit of anti-government organizations, and "a person who committed such act" is not required to be a person who has an idea of benefit to anti-government organizations, and it is only a conclusive or dolusent opinion that it is harmful to anti-government organizations. Thus, the court below's reasoning is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant made an oral statement like the facts charged by the anti-state organizations in this case at the time of its printing, but it is not appropriate for the court below to find that there was an error of law by the defendant's misunderstanding or encouraging the activities of anti-state organizations or that there was an idea that it would be more favorable for the defendant to do so. However, the court below's reasoning is that the defendant's oral statement and the most reasonable reasoning of the court below's oral statement that the defendant made an oral statement in violation of the rules of evidence, such as misunderstanding, Kim Jong-soo, Kim Jong-soo, and the defendant's oral statement and its best reasons.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court