Antipublic law 5(1) and the law of the crime of offering convenience under Article 7 of the same Act

The anti-public law does not constitute a crime of meeting under Article 5(1) of the anti-public law or a crime of offering convenience under Article 7 or a crime of meeting under Article 5(1) of the anti-public law in a pure humanitarian sense without any connection with a simple meeting with the public-private partnership or activities for the accomplishment of its purpose.

Article 5(1) of the Antipublic Law, Article 7 of the Antipublic Law

Defendant

Attorney Park Jae-il

Seoul High Court Decision 72No1541 delivered on July 24, 1973

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below knew that the defendant was the non-indicted South Korea Joint Venture in North Korea.

(1) On October 1968, at around 19:00 on the date, contact with the Nonindicted Party and meet with the non-indicted at the non-indicted cafeteria located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, which is operated by the Defendant’s mother’s mother, and meet with the person ordered by the anti-government organization;

(2) At around 12:00 on July 12, 1969, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Western-gu, 12:00, the Non-indicted 2,00 won was granted to the Non-indicted 2,00 won who was hospitalized in the room at the room at the 712 room of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western Hospital located and offered convenience to the person who was ordered by an anti-government organization, and the defendant is also subject to Articles 5(1) and 7 of the Anti-Public Law.

However, in light of the record, it can be known that the non-indicted was arrested before the Korean War, and the non-indicted was arrested before the Korean War, and then was detained for the enforcement of the remaining prison and was sentenced to the suspension of execution of the punishment. However, it cannot be said that it was insufficient to conclude that the non-indicted was "a member of the anti-government organization or a person who received its order" under Article 5 (1) of the anti-public law as a member of the anti-public law and the "a person who committed the crime of anti-public law or the National Security Act" under Article 7 of the same Act.

Second, the purpose of the anti-public law is to block the activities of the public sector that may endanger the national safety as specified in Article 1. Thus, without any connection with the mere face-to-face meeting with the public sector or the activities for the accomplishment of its objective, the learning in a purely humanitarian sense does not constitute the crime of meeting under Article 5.1 of the anti-public law or the crime of offering convenience under Article 7 (see Supreme Court Decisions 68Do754 delivered on July 30, 198 and 69Do1343 delivered on September 23, 1969). However, in this case, the judgment of the court below is merely a pure contact with the non-indicted, and it does not appear to be related to the non-indicted 9's activities for the accomplishment of its objective, and it is nothing more than 90Da7543 delivered on September 23, 1969, and it does not appear to have been known that the defendant had been hospitalized in the above non-indicted 9's meeting.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that applied Article 5 (1) and Article 7 of the Anti-Public Act to the defendant cannot be said to have failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or acknowledged facts without any evidence.

Therefore, the appeal by the counsel is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)