A. The method of determining the Voluntaryness of the statement

(b) the meaning of military secrets in the crime of espionage;

(c) Contents of the criminal intent in producing and distributing the expressive materials under Article 7(5) of the National Security Act;

D. The meaning of "a person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act

(e) A person who commits the crime of aiding and abetting a espionage under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act;

(f) Written mitigation of crimes of aiding and abetting a espionage under the National Security Act; and

A. The protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor on the suspect who became the defendant is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol has not been made arbitrarily, in case where the defendant's statement in the protocol is made by his statement in the court room, and in case where there is a dispute about the voluntariness, the court shall determine the voluntarity with free conviction by taking into account all the circumstances such as the form and contents of the protocol, the academic background, career, intelligence, etc. according to

B. Military secrets, which are the object of detection and collection of the crime of espionage under the National Security Act, include not only military secrets but also all those of our interest, regardless of whether or not they are widely known in Korea, such as politics, economy, society, culture and thought, but also those of our interest.

C. The production and distribution of the expressive materials under Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act refers to an act of producing and distributing them, while recognizing that the expressive materials are objectively in concert with the activities such as pro-North Korea propaganda and inciting North Korea leader, which would benefit an anti-government organization or their activities, or which would benefit therefrom, and it does not necessarily require that the production and distribution should have the intention to benefit an anti-government organization, or that it would result in a benefit to an anti-government organization.

D. The term "person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act includes not only a person who received an order directly from an anti-government organization, but also a person who received an order again from a person who received an order from an anti-government organization.

E. The requirement of "a member of, or a person who is ordered to, an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act is required only for a crime of espionage which is a principal offender. In the case of aiding and abetting, if the necessity of such requirement is recognized as a "espionage of an anti-government organization," it can be a principal agent.

F. Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act is an independent crime equal to a espionage crime, which is a principal offender, and is punished by the same statutory penalty as a espionage crime. As such, a accessories crime subject to mitigation under Article 32 of the General Provisions of the Criminal Act cannot be mitigated differently from its substance. Thus, the aggravated provision is that the crime of a espionage aiding and abetting by an anti-government organization under Article 4(1)2 of the National Security Act, which is the principal offender, should be punished by the same statutory punishment as the crime of a espionage by an anti-government organization, which is the principal offender, should be punished, and the punishment shall not be mitigated.

A. Article 312(c)(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 4(1)(c) of the National Security Act; Article 7(5) of the same Act; Article 32 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 86Do861 delivered on July 8, 1986. Supreme Court Decision 82Do2894 delivered on February 8, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 72Do687 delivered on May 23, 1972. Supreme Court Decision 73Do249 delivered on May 8, 1973. Supreme Court Decision 4292Do131 delivered on June 12, 1959.

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Defendants

Attorney Han-Gyeong and 7 others

Seoul High Court Decision 86No789 delivered on May 31, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of days under detention of the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment of each of the said defendants.

The Defendants and their defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

Of the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 and the defense counsel of the said Defendants, Defendant 1’s defense counsel, Defendant 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10, the admissibility of the protocol of examination of the suspect prepared by the Prosecutor is disputed;

The theory of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendants was unilaterally prepared by the prosecutor based on the investigation records sent by the police and forced the defendants to sign, affix, or affix their seals. Thus, not only the contents of the defendants' statements are different, but also the defendants were forced to make statements in the psychological suppression state by intimidation and hearing hearing when they are investigated by the police, and since the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendants continues to be conducted prior to the prosecutor's investigation, it is not admissible. Thus, the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendants is inadmissible due to the lack of arbitrariness of the statement, but the court below erred by violating the rules of evidence.

However, according to the records, in the first instance court, the Defendants made the same statement as the contents of each protocol of interrogation before the prosecutor in the free atmosphere before the prosecutor, and clearly made the statement that they were signed, sealed, and affixed to the same protocol, so it cannot be accepted whether the protocol was unilaterally prepared by the prosecutor regardless of the Defendants' statements. The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor for the suspect who became the accused is admissible unless there are grounds to suspect that the defendant's statement in the protocol is not made voluntarily, in case where the authenticity is acknowledged by the defendant's statement in the court room, unless there are grounds to suspect that the defendant's statement in the protocol is not made voluntarily. In case where the existence of voluntariness is disputed, the court shall determine whether it is voluntary, free, by taking into account the form and contents of the protocol in question, the academic background, career, intelligence etc. of the person who made the statement in question in question, and it is justified in the court below's arbitrary examination and its surrounding facts, and it is acknowledged that the Defendants' statement in the prosecutor's office and its surrounding circumstances were made without discretion.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 1 and their defense counsel

1. As to the omission of judgment and the omission of reasons:

According to the court below's reasoning, the court below determined that the facts of each crime can be fully recognized at the time of the first trial against the defendant according to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance. Thus, in light of the records, the court below's judgment is just and acceptable, and the court below did not specifically explain which facts of a crime can be recognized by any evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance in rejecting the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts. Thus, there is no error in the omission of judgment or the lack of reasons. Thus, the argument is groundless.

2. On the ground that there is an error of misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to violation of the rules of evidence

According to the evidence cited by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, since the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the non-indicted 1 was a member of the second instance court who was ordered by the anti-government organization and the non-indicted 2 was aware that he was a member of the anti-government organization, all of the facts in the judgment, including the fact that the non-indicted 1 was aware that the non-indicted 1 was a member of the anti-government organization, and the non-indicted 2 was aware of the fact that the facts were found without any evidence, there is no violation of law or incomplete deliberation. In addition, the military secrets, which are not only a simple military secret but also widely known in the Republic of Korea under the National Security Act, include all the secrets that are beneficially known or not known to the North Korean defense group in Korea, such as politics, economy, society, society, culture, thought, etc., and all of the military units, organization, number of troops, training and security situation, the amount and attitude of anti-government student movement and labor movement, and information about the occurrence and extinguishment of Gwangju situation, etc., which are justified in the judgment below.

3. As to the issue of unfair sentencing:

Examining the facts of the Defendant’s crime, the Defendant: (a) was included in the U.S. study in the U.S. study to escape from the North Korean territory as an anti-government organization; (b) went into the North Korean territory after being sealed at the same time; and (c) was admitted to the North Korean Labor Foundation; and (d) included and collected various military secrets and sent them to the North Korea; and (b) carried them into the Republic of Korea closely and provided them as students’ anti-government learning materials; and (c) caused enormous harm to the Republic of Korea, such as taking the breadth of the Gwangju Cultural Institute and the 2nd Gwangju Incident by inducing the students involved; and (d) considering the circumstances cited by the theory of the Defendant’s crime, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s measure against the Defendant, and there is no substantial reason to deem it unreasonable.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 11 and their defense counsel

1. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles:

A. According to the court below's decision, the production and distribution of expressive materials under Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act refers to the act of producing and distributing them while recognizing that they are objectively acting in concert with activities such as anti-government organizations or their activities or inciting them to benefit them, and it does not require that the production and distribution of them must be the purpose of causing benefit to anti-government organizations or bring about benefit to them. In addition, the court below's decision that the defendant produced and distributed them jointly with the defendant 2 and 3 is just and justified in the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act of producing and distributing books and printed materials such as "equitable and patition" should be determined by the 7th anti-government organizations, and that our anti-government organizations were forced by anti-government organizations such as the United States, anti-national organizations, and anti-government organizations, and that it should be determined that the student movement was made in accordance with the above legal principles, and that the defendant's act of producing and distributing books and printed materials should not be determined directly by the court below's decision.

B. In light of the records of the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below, the defendant escaped from the Hungaryn North Korea Embassy in order to receive an order from an anti-government organization into the Hungaryn North Korea Embassy and the North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea Ltd., with the intention of carrying out the order as stated in the judgment, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts were discovered and collected as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law in the judgment of the court below, such as Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act, and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act, and it includes all confidential matters which are the interest of the Republic of Korea, even if widely known to the general public, because it does not notify or confirm to the North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea's Republic of Korea's Republic.

C. In light of the records of the first instance court's decision maintained by the court below, the defendant, along with the defendant 2 and 3, aims to achieve socialism through the so-called anti-national attack, and therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the organization of "the whole citizens" is organized by the organization of the defendant, "the whole citizens" as stated in its reasoning, which is the basic principle for the promotion of anti-state war by awareness of workers, farmers, students, etc. in order to achieve the goal. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, it is clear that the "the whole citizens" of the judgment is an organization formed by the three members of the defendant, who are the main part of the defendant, to set the common goal and implement the goal, and the common goal or the basic action direction with the whole citizens, which is inside the country, is an objective point of view, and therefore, it is clear that the defendant's act of organizing the organization is objectively deemed as benefit of anti-government organization, and it is justified in the judgment of the court below that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the composition of anti-government organization of anti-government organization.

2. As to the issue of unfair sentencing:

Examining the facts of the defendant's crime, the defendant committed considerable harm to the inside of the Republic of Korea by manufacturing, distributing and collecting a large quantity of printed materials containing the anti-stateism ideology and anti-U.S. in a university, i.e., detecting the Republic of Korea in order to lay the foundation for the construction of a sub-state and socialist state, even if considering the circumstances and overall circumstances shown in the records of the defendant's crime, the court below accepted the measures of maintaining the first instance court's sentence against the defendant, and it is not recognized that there is a substantial reason to believe that it is extremely unfair, even if considering the circumstances and circumstances described in the records of the defendant's crime, the court below affirmed the measures of the first instance court's sentence against the defendant, and it is not reasonable.

4. Defendant 10 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

1. On the assertion that there is an error of mistake of facts, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence

According to the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance which the court below maintained, since all facts constituting the crime can be fully acknowledged at the time of the first trial against the defendant, the judgment below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, there

2. As to the argument on unreasonable sentencing:

The defendant thought that a socialist state should be constructed due to the violence revolution among the public in university science through a reading conference, and recognized university students as a co-government theory through a reading conference, and discovered the possibility of organizing the underground revolution organization even during the temporary return to Korea, and collected all the data on domestic affairs, and then connected Defendant 1 to the North Korean Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do n, thereby causing serious harm to the inside of the Republic of Korea, such as having Defendant 1 enter the Do Do Do Do Do Do to receive a counter-espionage education, and leading to a Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do n Do Do n Do Do n's activities in Korea. Therefore, even if considering all the conditions of the circumstances and records cited in the above crime, we cannot accept the argument.

5. Defendant 9 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

1. As to the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of the legal principles under Article 4(1) of the National Security Act

A. The "person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act includes not only the person who received an order directly from an anti-government organization but also the person who received an order from an anti-government organization again (see Supreme Court Decision 72Do687, May 23, 1972). In light of the records, the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant received an order again from the defendant 1 who received an order from an anti-government organization and committed each crime such as the first trial for the execution of the order, and it cannot be said that there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of "a person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act.

B. In light of the records, the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, in order to support Defendant 1, a member of an anti-government organization, the defendant decided to organize an underground learning organization for learning the idea of Madiceism and Kim Il-sung in accordance with the order of Defendant 1, a member of an anti-government organization. After combining Defendants 4, 7, 8, and 3 as members, each member of the organization, the defendant 7 is responsible for sharing the role of listening to North Korea Broadcasting and learning the idea of Kim Il-sung from the members, the defendant 8 is responsible for gathering and publishing all kinds of materials, and the defendant 4 is responsible for collecting and distributing all materials, and the non-indicted 3 is not entitled to receive and continuing the study, and the court below's decision that the defendant's organization's act of learning and experience can be justified and found as constituting an anti-government organization under the provision of Article 7 of the National Security Act for the purpose of maintaining its knowledge and experience in the activities of the non-government organization.

2. As to the issue of unfair sentencing:

The defendant, under the order of the defendant 1, who was a counter-espionage, committed a counter-espionage act in the socialist thought, and formed a re-sponsive organization, as well as caused considerable harm on the inside of the Republic of Korea, such as attempting to prevent the fire of the US Cultural Institute by explosives, and preparing and conspiracying the second Gwangju incident. In light of the above crime, even if considering the circumstances of the lawsuit in light of the above crime, the measures of maintaining the sentence of the first instance court against the defendant are acceptable, and it is not recognized that there is a significant reason to regard it as extremely unfair.

6. Defendant 2, 3 and their defense counsel's grounds of appeal

1. Regarding the assertion that there is an error of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle due to the violation of the rules of evidence:

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, since the defendants' first trial against the defendants can sufficiently be accepted in violation of the rules of evidence, the defendants' act of producing and distributing printed articles in the judgment of "all citizens" organized with defendant 11 constitutes a pro rata organization under Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act and constitutes "production and distribution of printed articles" under Article 7 (5) of the same Act shall be deemed as the grounds of appeal by the defendant 11. Further, it is sufficient to view that the contents of the act are objectively beneficial to the anti-state organization and the contents of the act result in the infringement of anti-state organization. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is not justified.

7. Defendant 4 and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal

1. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to "person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act:

The "person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act includes not only a person who received an order directly from an anti-government organization but also a person who received an order from an anti-government organization again from a person who received an order from an anti-government organization, as stated in the grounds of appeal against the defendant 9, and therefore, the judgment below is justifiable. Furthermore, in light of the records, the court of first instance cited by the court below, as well as the fact that the defendant was aware that he was a person who received an order from the defendant 1 who was a member of an anti-government organization, a member of an anti-government organization, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized each of the crimes of 2 to 4,6,7, and8 at the time of the original judgment. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to "an anti-government organization" under Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of aiding and abetting a espionage under Article 4(1)2 of the National Security Act

According to the main sentence of Article 4 (1) and subparagraph 2 of the National Security Act, if a member of an anti-government organization or a person who is ordered to engage in an act under Article 98 of the Criminal Act for the purpose of fulfilling his own purposes, he shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life. Meanwhile, according to Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act, a person who acts as a counter-espionage for an enemy country or aids and abets a counter-espionage of an enemy country shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life or for not less than seven years. On the other hand, if the above two provisions are compared, the above provisions of the National Security Act are clear that a member of an anti-government organization or a person who is ordered to engage in such acts as a counter-espionage of an anti-government organization, or a person who aids and abets such acts, knowing that he is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who is ordered to engage in such acts, and thus, the court below's judgment should be interpreted as one of the crimes of Article 4 (1) of the National Security Act.

3. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the dual organizations under Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act, since the ground of appeal by the defendant 7 is without merit, the ground of appeal by the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the dual organizations under Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is that the underground learning organization under Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act is a dual organization organized by the defendant 7, 9

8. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence among the grounds of appeal by Defendant 5 and his defense counsel

In light of the records, the evidence cited by the court of first instance, cited by the court below, can be sufficiently acknowledged facts constituting a crime committed in the course of the defendant's original trial against the defendant, so there is no error of law recognizing facts without any evidence like the theory of lawsuit in the court below. Each of the defendant's original trial at the time of the defendant's original trial constitutes a acts of counter-espionage by facilitating the acts of counter-espionage by aiding and abetting the defendant 1, a counter-espionage, and thus, the court below's measures against the defendant's original judgment by applying Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act are just and there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of counter-espionage under

9. As to the assertion of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence among the grounds of appeal by Defendant 6, his defense counsel, Defendant 7 and 8

In light of the records of the court of first instance cited by the court below, since all facts constituting the crime can be sufficiently recognized at the time of the original adjudication against the defendants, there is no illegality of finding facts without any evidence, and in addition, the original adjudication organized by the defendants for the purpose of learning and gathering books at the time of the original adjudication, which is a book that promotes the construction of Kim Il-sung or the public-private society, and copying and distributing them to other students, the organization constitutes an organization organized for the purpose of probing anti-government organizations under Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act in view of its purpose and contents of learning, and therefore, the judgment below is just and justified.

With respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of Nos. 10, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8:

The argument that the sentencing is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, since both the Defendants were sentenced to a ten-year civil sentence. All of the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the Defendants’ final appeal is without merit and is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the final appeal is included in the imprisonment with prison labor for Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)