Whether the crime of Article 4 (1) of the former Anti-Public Law is an objective crime (negative)

In comparison with other countries, if there is awareness of speech and behavior and the obscenity of anti-government organizations, etc.

A. Since the crime of Article 4(1) of the former Anti-Corruption Act is not a so-called crime, it is not necessary for an actor to engage in the conduct of anti-government organizations or to have an awareness of the same purpose. However, if the perception of such fact exists, it is sufficient.

B. In light of the purport that the Defendant’s climate and mass destruction problems in the liquor area emerged as a chemicalism, and that it is compared with other countries of the Republic of Korea by citing literature such as magazines, papers, books, etc. published in the Republic of Korea, it cannot be deemed that there was no perception that the activities of anti-government organizations or foreign organizations of public relations should be impered, marced, and that there was no marcing, marcing, or marcing, of the marcous marc, unlike the old day in the marc marc, and that there was no marcing, marcing, or marcing of the marc marc marc marc marc.

Article 4(1) of the former Anti-Public Law; Article 7(1) of the National Security Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (Defendant 2) and Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Jong-il

Busan District Court Decision 80No2115 delivered on January 27, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance that the court below maintained, it can be sufficiently recognized the facts of the defendant's judgment, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts due to the evidence preparation in violation of the rules of evidence, and the so-called of the defendant's judgment satisfies the elements of Article 4 (1) of the former Anti-Public Law. Thus, there is no error of law as to

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on Defendant 2

Since the crime of Article 4 (1) of the former Anti-Public Act is not a so-called crime, it is not necessary for an actor to cite the activities of anti-government organizations or engage in the purpose of pro-government organizations. However, if there is awareness of such fact, it is the same as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the judgment of the first instance court maintained by the court below did not have any intent to act in concert with, or to act in, the activities of the public sector in the process of making the speech and behavior as stated in its reasoning, it cannot be viewed that the defendant had any intention to act in relation to, the activities of the public sector or to act in favor of, it is appropriate to present the reasoning.

However, the judgment of the court of first instance at the court below is just in light of the motive, content and other records of the defendant's speech and behavior as stated in its decision, and the defendant appeared as a chemical agenda, and thus, the defendant made a speech and behavior as stated in its decision by citing the articles of public relations and literature such as books and books published in the Republic of Korea and comparing it with other public figures. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was any awareness that the activities of anti-government organizations or foreign public relations groups were praise, rubber, aid, or harming them. The above judgment of the court of first instance is justified in light of the motive, content and other records of the defendant's ordinary character and behavior as stated in its decision, and it cannot be said that there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 4 (1) of the former Public Law. In addition, the part related to the statement of co-defendant 1 among documentary evidence cited in the theory of lawsuit related to the words and behavior of the defendant, and it cannot be concluded that all of the arguments are groundless because it did not violate the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)