The case holding that a national secret under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the National Security Act is not disclosed;

In Japan, the defendant asked questions as to whether the public opinion in the Republic of Korea on the co-name of 7.4 South and North Korea will become a unification of South and North Korea, but the government authorities stated that it should strengthen more anti-government attitude than in this time, it does not constitute a crime of divulging state secrets under the National Security Act.

Article 3 of the National Security Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Musan Branch Court (73 High Gohap21)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years and suspension of qualifications for the defendant.

One hundred and fifty-five days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the penalty.

Of the facts charged, Defendant 11:00 on December 6, 1972, Defendant 1 was acquitted that he disclosed national secrets to Non-Indicted 1 of the Machiun Senior Civil Service (Seoul), a Korean Senior Civil Service, on the part of Defendant 1.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: the defendant was living in and out of the Republic of Korea, the second sentence of Nonindicted 1, who was living in the east of the year before and after three times before and after the defendant met, but the first sentence was not known that he was a member of the KN, and the next sentence was present at the birth Madial Madial Madial Madial Madial Madial Madial Madial Madial Madial Madial Madna, and the second sentence was recommended that he was a member of the KNN, and lastly, he did not know about his activities, and did not reveal any national secrets including Korean military secrets at the same time, and did not encourage Nonindicted 2 or 3 to Modial Madial and North Korea's activities, and did not encourage the defendant to do so, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in light of the facts against the rules of evidence and affected the judgment.

On December 6, 1972, the court below asked the defendant about whether the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the Cho Jong-soo, was in the Republic of Korea on July 4, 1972, and asked the defendant about whether the public opinion, etc. on the joint name of South and North Korea, was in the unification of peace between South and North Korea. The defendant is good for the ordinary people in Korea, but the government authorities stated that the public secret should be strengthened more than once, and the government authorities knew that the state secret should be strengthened, and applied Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the National Security Act to this.

However, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's act was not recognized to have divulged the national secrets under Article 3 (1) of the National Security Act on the ground that he did not constitute the crime of divulging the national secrets, but it affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of divulging the national secrets under Article 3 of the National Security Act, which affected the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without determining the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

In the summary of the facts constituting the crime against the defendant and the evidence, the court below did not add as evidence the part of the statement that conforms to the judgment of non-indicted 2 in the trial court prior to remanding to "7", after deducting "7 of the facts constituting the crime of the court below," and excluding the part of the statement that conforms to the judgment of the witness non-indicted 2 in the trial court prior to remanding to "7". Thus,

(Application of Law)

Article 5(1) and Article 3 subparag. 1 of the National Security Act provides that if the defendant's non-defensive act, the defendant's disclosure of national secrets constitutes one of the crimes listed in the judgment below, one of the crimes listed in the above Article 5(1) and Article 5 subparag. 1 of the National Security Act provides that if the defendant's crime is committed, one of the crimes listed in the above Article 98(2) and 3-1 of the Criminal Act provides that if he discloses military secrets, one of the crimes listed in the above Article 98(2) and (1), two, and six of the crimes listed in the above Article 4(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act provides that if he embling and rubber activities are performed, one of the crimes listed in the above Article 5 subparag. 1 of the National Security Act provides that if the defendant commits such crimes, five of the crimes listed in the above Article 5(1) of the National Security Act provides that the defendant's punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed concurrently, three of the crimes listed in the above Article 7(1) and three of the Act provides that.

However, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they voluntarily surrendered to the 502 Security Guards located in Msan on December 27, 1972, but the testimony of Nonindicted 4, 5, and 6 before and after the remanding of the case is insufficient to support this as a material to recognize it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant and his defense counsel voluntarily surrenders to the other.

(not guilty Part)

Of the facts charged against the defendant, at around 11:00 on December 6, 1972, the defendant asked the defendant about whether the non-indicted 1, who was the Cho Jong-man in Japan, was a public opinion, etc. in the Republic of Korea on the joint names of the 7.4 South and North Korea, and the ordinary ordinary people would be a unification of peace between South and North Korea. However, the government authorities stated that the state secrets should be strengthened more anti-government as soon as possible, and that the state secrets should be leaked on the ground that the above defendant's case was returned to the time when the defendant's case was not committed a crime, and that the defendant's case was acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)