If it is the meaning that one asks an investigative agency to inform and request the facts of his anti-state crime, there is no reason to order again for the purpose of preventing a violation of public law.

(A) If the defendant knew his anti-state criminal facts to be known to an investigation agency and asked the defendant to give a prior intention, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was not subject to command by the defendant for the purpose of preventing an anti-state act in violation of the anti-public law, and that the defendant also committed an anti-state act as stated in the original judgment, knowing that he committed an anti-state act in violation of the anti-public law. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit an anti-public act in violation of the anti-public law.

Article 5 (1) of the Conflict of Laws

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 71No555 delivered on October 2, 1971, Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 71No55 delivered on October 2, 1971

The conviction part among the original judgment is reversed, and the case on this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds for appeal of the defense counsel system are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below on November 6, 1970, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant committed the act of violation of public law in violation of the provisions of each of sub-paragraph (1) and (4) of sub-paragraph (4) of sub-paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of sub-paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (4) of sub-paragraph (1) of sub-paragraph (a 1 of sub-paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (ab) of sub-paragraph (1) of sub-paragraph (ab) of sub-paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of sub-paragraph (ab) of sub-paragraph (ab) of sub-paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (i) of sub-paragraph (i) of sub-paragraph (i) of sub-paragraph

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, at around 8.02:00 on November 8, 1970, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-indicted 1, as soon as pit in the non-indicted 2, was a large person of the Choun-man's underground network, and himself was also engaged in political activities. Whether he returned to Korea or he was asked the head of the Central Information Department Kim Jong-gun to inform him of such fact. If the non-indicted 1, who asked him to inform his anti-state crime to the Kim Jong-won, asked him of his intention not to do any anti-state act in the future, the court below did not inform him of the fact that the non-indicted 1 was not subject to an order for non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's motive and the defendant 1's motive.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho