beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and suspension of qualifications for one year;
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) 1 merely conducted religious activities and did not commit the instant crime, and the “F” is merely a religious community, and the meeting between members of anti-government organizations does not constitute a meeting prescribed by the National Security Act and the Anti-National Security Act. Even if there was an anti-government activity during the religious activities of the Defendants, this cannot be deemed an anti-state activity, and the lower court convicted the Defendants of all the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence, by misapprehending the legal principles, by misapprehending the rules of evidence, by misapprehending the legal principles, or by failing to comply with the reasoning of the judgment of the lower court, or by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The sentence against
B. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uncomfortable.
2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment convicting several criminal facts in the relation of concurrent crimes within the scope of judgment of this court, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting a crime among them, the decision to commence retrial has to be made on the whole of the judgments. However, inasmuch as the effect of the decision to commence retrial is limited to the facts constituting a crime for which there is no grounds for retrial under the nature of the retrial system, which is a means of emergency relief, the effect of the decision to commence retrial is included in the part of the judgment formally, the retrial court cannot reverse the conviction by re-examination. However, since the new sentencing should be imposed on that part, only the scope necessary for sentencing can be deliberated only
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1239 delivered on July 13, 2001). Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A, who had grounds for a retrial, violated the National Security Act due to the creation of false facts and the act of war ex officio, on March 3, 1981.