Whether a crime of attempted counter-espionage under the National Security Act, Article 2, 7, and Article 98 (2) of the Criminal Act can be established only on the ground that the crime of attempted counter-espionage was ordered to detect and collect national secrets or that the crime of attempted counter-espionage was established.

The crime of attempted counter-espionage under the National Security Act, Article 2, Article 7, and Article 98 (2) of the Criminal Act is not sufficient just because it received an order to detect and collect national secrets, or establishing a so-called unmannedpos, and it is required to commence the act of detecting and collecting national secrets according to the order.

Articles 7 and 2 of the National Security Act, Article 92 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

(National Ship) Attorneys Kim Dong-dong et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 74No359 delivered on July 22, 1974

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

The lower judgment against Defendant 2 and 3 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. Determination of the grounds of appeal against Defendant 1

1. As to the defense counsel system and the first ground of appeal by the defendant himself:

The issue is that the judgment of the court of first instance, which maintained the judgment of the court below, has committed an unlawful act of finding the criminal facts against the defendant for a serious mistake of facts, but it is sufficient to examine the evidence lawfully examined by the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance by comparing the records and find the criminal facts against the defendant in health care unit, and it cannot be found that there is an unlawful reason for finding the defendant guilty unfairly.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 as well as the ground of appeal on the Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the Korean government-appointed attorney:

Although the judgment of the court of first instance, which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which declared life imprisonment for the defendant, is very heavy, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the sentencing of the court of first instance is extremely unfair even if considering the detailed review of the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing through the recording of various circumstances.

The judgment of the grounds of appeal as to the defendant 2 and 3

The defense counsel's error system and the Defendants' grounds of appeal are examined together.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendants 2 did not have any effect on the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted.

Therefore, the appeal by Defendant 1 is dismissed by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal, and the part as to Defendant 2 and 3 is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)