Whether an act of hiding a espionage constitutes a espionage;

Even if a counter-espionage has been hidden, no crime of aiding and abetting a counter-espionage shall be committed unless it is deemed that the counter-espionage has an intention to facilitate the crime of the counter-espionage because the fact that the counter-espionage has detected, collected, leaked, or attempted to divulge military secrets.

Article 98 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1616 Decided January 31, 1967

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Dog-to-be, e.g., g., freeboard (for the Defendants, freeboard)

Seoul High Court Decision 73No711 delivered on February 14, 1975

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ intent to facilitate the commission of the crime of the victim who is a principal offender (the non-indicted 2).

In light of the records, the judgment of cooking evidence belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, and it cannot be recognized that there is an illegality in violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment, even after examining records. This is eventually attributable to the assertion of mistake of facts, and this is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding the defendants' criminal intent of espionage prevention against the defendants.

Therefore, the original judgment is just because it is unnecessary to determine the remaining points, and it is not possible to affect the conclusion of the original judgment in the original judgment.

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

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)