208 Inventory 1 Violation of the National Security Act

○○ (470423-0000), Duty-free

Residential City 00 000

Dogdogdog-ri ○○○○ in the place of registration in Gunsan City

Defendant

Sho Lakes

Law Firm Malisung

Attorney Cho Yong-hwan, Attorney Cho Jong-chul et al.

Jeonju District Court Decision 84Gohap109 delivered on November 15, 1984

October 31, 2008

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

It is as shown in the attached Form.

2. Determination

(a) Evidence without admissibility (1) Each protocol of suspect examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

According to the statement statement of each person subject to investigation as to the defendant's statements in the court, the statement of the defendant in this court, the statement of the defendant in this court, the records of appeal, and the return of evidence (the trial records in the case subject to review) records, the statement of each witness statement made by the investigator of the past History Mediation Committee for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the "Council of Korea History Mediation Committee"), the investigator of the past History Mediation Committee, and the records of each person subject to investigation as to Kim 00, the fact that the defendant was born at the opening of the court and graduated from an elementary school, and was only 14 years after he was living at the elementary school, and almost little Korean language can not be read or used. ② The defendant was committed in the previous security unit on May 26, 1984, and was illegally detained without a warrant until June 27, 1984 when the warrant of detention was executed, ③ the defendant's interrogation of the suspect's identity during the above period of confinement or re-reporting of the defendant.

According to the above facts, although the prosecutor examined the defendant and there was no suspicion of the defendant at the time of preparing each interrogation protocol of the defendant, the defendant's interrogation protocol of the defendant as to the defendant in the police investigation stage has continued to proceed to the above prosecutor's investigation stage, since there was no voluntariness due to illegal confinement, violence, or cruel act, each interrogation protocol of the defendant in the preparation of the prosecutor'

(2) According to each statement on ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○’s statement, the Defendant’s statements in this court, ○○○○, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○’s statements in this court, ○0, 00 the investigator’s preparation of the past History Settlement Commission, and ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○’s statements on 00, 100, 60, 1970, 6, 196, 6, 196, 6, 19, 3,00,00, 6,000, 6,000, 6,000, 6,000, 6,000, 6,000, 6,000, 6,000, 2,000.

According to the above facts of recognition, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○ made a statement in a state without voluntariness at the security unit of the preceding week, and the state of deliberation without voluntariness continues to continue to continue the above stage of prosecutor’s investigation. As such, each written statement of ○○○, ○○, and ○○○○, and ○○○○, and ○○○○, and ○○○○, and ○○○, and each written statement of ○○, ○○, and ○○, as written by a judicial police officer, are inadmissible as there is no voluntariness. (3) ① Each written statement of the Defendant prepared by a judicial police officer against the Defendant is denied by the Defendant, and ② each written statement prepared by the Defendant at the police investigation stage is admitted as evidence to the effect that it denies its contents, and thus, all of them are inadmissible

(4) Each statement of ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○, and ○○○○, ② each statement of a judicial police officer’s 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, and 00, the prosecutor’s preparation, and each statement of a prosecutor’s 0, 00, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300, and 200

(5) Of the fact-finding report prepared by a judicial police officer, the part of the Defendant’s statement in the actual investigation report prepared by the judicial police officer consents to the effect that the Defendant denies its content as evidence. The remaining parts consent to the admissibility of evidence. Since this court did not recognize its authenticity by the originator, the part of the Defendant’s statement in the investigation report prepared by the prosecutor is inadmissible. ② The part of the evidence-finding report prepared by the prosecutor is not voluntary as shown in the above (1). The rest of the part is consenting to the Defendant’s admission as evidence. In this court, it is not admissible because it is not recognized that the authenticity of the

B. The value of the remaining evidence 1)

(1) Part of the trial record in the first and second cases subject to review

According to the above evidence, the defendant's statement to the purport that the facts charged in this case were recognized on the first day of the trial of the case subject to reexamination may be recognized. However, as seen earlier, according to the defendant's statement in this court, according to the defendant's statement in this court, the security unit investigator's above trial date of the case subject to reexamination continued to continue to exist on the above trial date in light of the fact that the defendant's investigation officer was found to have been in the court, and as seen above, the defendant was unable to see or use almost Korean language as stated in the facts charged, and it appears that it would be difficult for the defendant to either assemble or read the secret code as stated in the facts charged, or send a letter to the broadcasting station, it is difficult to believe the above evidence.

(2) A protocol of examination of witness with respect to this ○○ out of the third protocol of trial in a case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (a) of Article 1 of the facts charged)

According to the above evidence, the court below held that this 00 was the defendant at the third trial date of the case subject to retrial by asking him about the fact that the person was the defendant, but this is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was detection of national secrets, such as Paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the facts charged. (3) Each protocol of examination of witness against the 00,000, 00, and 00 among the third trial records of the case subject to retrial (related to Paragraph (b) of Article 1 of the Facts of Prosecution)

In light of the fact that the above evidence stated in this court that the witness had 00, 000, 000, and 00 stated that he had talked differently from the fact at the time due to the suspicion or fear of the investigation agency, it is difficult to believe this.

(4) The protocol of examination of witness on ○○ among the third protocol of the trial in a case subject to reexamination (related to Article 1-3(3) of the facts charged)

According to the above evidence, it is acknowledged that ○○○ was asked by the Defendant about the organization of the reserve forces and the method of keeping arms during the third trial of the case subject to reexamination, and that he was asked by him about the method of keeping arms in the reserve forces. However, according to the Defendant’s statement in this court and the third trial records of the case subject to reexamination, according to the Defendant’s statement in this court and the third trial records, the Defendant did not ask 00, who is the commander of the reserve forces, and as to the organization of the reserve forces, it is difficult to believe the above evidence

(5) A protocol of examination of witness with respect to ○○ among the trial records of the third case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (2) of the facts charged)

According to the above evidence, 'Y0' from the defendant on the third trial date of the case subject to reexamination is more advanced than that of the fishermen in North Korea. The two North Koreas also appear in the son's university. Although the fishermen were to have made a statement that 'the fishermen would receive free of charge if the fishermen were well drinking', the above evidence can not be believed in light of the fact that according to the defendant's statement in this court, the investigator's statement in the investigator's statement about ○○ of the past history adjustment committee, the defendant took part in North Korea, according to the fact that the defendant took part in North Korea.

(6) A protocol of examination of witness on both ○○ out of the third protocol of trial for a case subject to reexamination (related to paragraph (f) of Article 1 of the Public Prosecution Act)

According to the above evidence, although it is recognized that ○○○ was made by questioning the Defendant about the duties, location, employees, equipment, etc. of the maritime inquiry station established at the intermediate point between the Gunsan and the Yancheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Eup of the Republic of Korea during the third trial of the case subject to reexamination, the defendant's statement at this court, and each witness's statement prepared by the investigator of the investigation committee at the time entered and departing from the military port can be recognized as having been inspected by the above maritime inquiry office at all times, and the defendant also had the above maritime inquiry office at all times. Accordingly, even if the defendant did not ask ○○, even if he did not know the above contents, it is difficult to believe the above evidence.

(7) The protocol of examination of the witness on this ○○ out of the fourth protocol of the trial in a case subject to reexamination (related to the first paragraph of the facts charged)

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant participated in the industrial inspection of the North Korean defectors on June 17, 1983 and visited the Military Power Station. However, according to the witness's statement statement on 00 as to the preparation of the investigator of the past History Settlement Commission, 30 persons were in charge of the above industrial inspection, and 10 police officers leading the above fishing team were in charge of the above fishing team. According to this evidence, it is deemed impossible to detect the situation of security because the defendant was absent from the middle of the above industrial inspection and it is difficult to detect the situation of security. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the above evidence alone was detection of national secrets like the first charge.

(8) A certificate, etc.

In addition to the above evidence, it is insufficient to recognize each of the charges of this case solely on the written confirmation of the 5030 commander preparation of the Navy, each written confirmation of the preparation of the 5030 commander of the Maritime Police Station, the confirmation of the preparation of the 2632 unit coast guard station, the confirmation of the preparation of the 2632 unit coast guard register of the Army, the confirmation of the preparation of the 2632 unit coast guard register of the Gunsan District, the preparation of the Gun

3. Conclusion

Thus, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime as seen earlier, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judgment of the presiding judge;

Judges Han Jong-hwan

Judges Dok-ray

1) The record of the appeal submitted by the Prosecutor and the return of evidence are accompanied by the records of the trial in the case subject to a retrial.

The protocol of trial of a case subject to review and the protocol of examination of a witness attached to the above evidence are attached to the above evidence.

An expression is omitted.