In order to establish the crime of non-disclosure under Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law, even though it is clearly aware that the act of the principal offender is the person who committed the crime under Articles 3 through 7 of the same Act, it shall be established without notifying it to the investigative intelligence agency.

In order to establish the crime of non-disclosure under Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law, even though it is clearly aware that the act of the principal offender is the person who committed the crime under Articles 3 through 7 of the same Act, it shall be established without notifying it to the investigative intelligence agency.

Article 8 of the Antipublic Law

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 71No625 delivered on November 18, 1971

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in each original sentence, each 80 days.

Determination as to the grounds for appeal by the defendants Kim Jong-chul, Dong Jae-sik, Dong Dong-do, and his defense counsel;

When comparing and reviewing all the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited by the original judgment, the facts constituting a crime can be fully recognized at the time of the first trial of the above defendants. Therefore, the judgment that the original judgment was based on the same purport is just and there is no illegality of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law as to the case in which the court of first instance rendered a decision of less than 10 years to the above defendants, and the argument that the sentencing of the above

The judgment on the grounds for each appeal by Defendant Jong-dae and his defense counsel for the first time, on the part of his defense counsel;

In comparison with the records, the court below's decision against the defendant was just, and there was an error of misunderstanding the facts in the original judgment by denying the facts established by the original judgment, and the defendant's argument that the punishment is excessive, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case for which two years have passed, and the defendant's act of crime in violation of Articles 3 through 7 of the Anti-Public Law is established, even though he clearly recognizes the fact that the act of crime in violation of Articles 3 through 7 of the Anti-Public Law is a person who committed a crime in violation of Article 7 of the Anti-Public Law, and it is not established as an investigation intelligence agency. Thus, since the original judgment is not erroneous in the assistance disposition which judged that the defendant and the defendant 1 clearly knew the fact that he was a person who committed a crime in violation of Article 4 (1) of the Anti-Public Law and did not notify it to the investigative intelligence agency, and there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of non-disclosure in the Anti-Public Law.

Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed. The calculation of the number of days of detention under Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be applied to each case. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)