A. The meaning of a counter-espionage act under Article 2 of the former National Security Act and Article 89(1) of the Criminal Act

B. The meaning of military secrets under Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act

C. The meaning of diving in the crime of diving under Article 6(2) of the National Security Act

A. A. The crime of espionage under Article 2 of the former National Security Act and Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act is established by detecting and soliciting any confidential information in all fields, such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc., which is at a disadvantage of the enemy country, as well as military secrets for the enemy country.

B. The term “military secrets” under Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act includes not only pure military secrets in light of the aspects of modern times, but also all such secrets as are known to the enemy country throughout all fields of the country, such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc., which are directly linked to military force and are related to the performance of military operations.

C. The act of locked under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act does not necessarily be limited to the entry into the Republic of Korea by a non-legal procedure, and unlike Article 6 (1) of the same Act, the act of locked is not limited to only the entry into the Republic of Korea by an area in which anti-government organizations are controlled by, but also a case where a person has a legitimate passport in the Republic of Korea and has returned to the Republic of Korea by a legitimate procedure, and even if he returned to the Republic of Korea after having a legitimate passport in the Republic of Korea, the act constitutes locked if he was ordered to receive an order from, or have

A. Article 98(1) of the former National Security Act (No. 549, Jun. 10, 1960); Article 98(2) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 68Do1825 Decided February 25, 1969 (b) 68Do1409 Decided December 24, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 82Do201 Decided November 23, 1982 (C) 68Do754 Decided July 30, 1968

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-young

Seoul High Court Decision 82No3200 decided Feb. 25, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are examined (the grounds of appeal by the defendant are examined after the expiration of the period for submission of the written reasons, so the above grounds are supplemental).

1. As to the allegation that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law due to violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing

In comparison with the evidence in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below, the measures that the court below acknowledged all the facts constituting the violation of the National Security Act and the violation of the anti-public law as to the defendant are proper, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit in the process of fact-finding, nor any error of misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation. The examination of the accused prepared by the judicial police officer does not admit as evidence of fact-finding, and according to the records, the defendant not only recognized the authenticity and voluntariness as to the examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor on the trial date, but also there is no evidence to suspect that the defendant's statement made by the public prosecutor was in the absence of voluntariness and there is no evidence to suspect that the defendant's statement made by the public prosecutor on the trial date was made in the absence of voluntariness, and each witness of the defendant's application (laver, Kim Jong-young, Park Jong-ok

2. As to the assertion that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to State secrets in the crime of espionage and leakage of State secrets

Article 2 of the former National Security Act and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act are established by detecting and collecting any secret extending to all fields of politics, economy, society, culture, etc. which are disadvantageous to the enemy country as well as military secrets for the enemy country. The military secrets under Article 98 (2) of the Criminal Act include not only pure military secrets in light of modern times but also all fields of the country such as politics, economy, society, society, culture, etc. which are directly connected with military operations and are related to military operations. If a person who has become aware of such secrets in connection with his duties discloses it to the enemy country, such secrets constitute crimes under Article 98 (2) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do201, Nov. 23, 1982; 196Do201, Nov. 23, 1982; 2000Do282, Nov. 24, 200).

3. As to the assertion that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of diving

The crime of diving under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act is established when "to receive an order from, or to consult with, an anti-government organization or a member thereof," and it shall not be deemed to be limited to cases where a diving itself enters or departs from the Republic of Korea by a non-legal procedure. Unlike the above Paragraph (1) of the same Article, it shall not be limited to cases where it is necessarily a locked act from an area under the control of an anti-government organization, and even if the defendant had a legitimate passport in Korea and returned to Korea by a legitimate procedure, it shall include cases where he received an order from a member of an anti-government organization, as determined by the court below, and there is no error in the part of the court below which applied Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act to the so-called judgment of the defendant, and the purport of the above decision shall be supported by the majority opinion.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed. In applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, one hundred days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Gangnam-young (Presiding Justice)