207 Inventory2 A. Violation of the National Security Act

B. Violation of anti-public law

1.(b)A, A, and Fisheries

2.b.B. Agriculture

3.2.(b) C, free of office;

4.(b)D, commerce

5.2.(b) E, fishing

6.2.2.the net F

For the 217th executive branch drawings of the North Korean territory in the place of registration;

1. Defendant 1 through 5;

2. Spouse G of the deceased defendant 6

Park Gyeong-sat

Attorney Song-ho et al. (for the defendant)

The above-mentioned District Court Decision 79Gohap6 delivered on July 10, 1979

Parts as to Defendants

July 9, 2008

Defendants are not guilty

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the indictment is as shown in the attached Form.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court as evidence of each of the interrogation records for the Defendants, ① Information on the Police Station of the Military Prosecutors' Office and Police Officers A, c, d, and e, f, etc., who were the police officers belonging to the Jeonbuk-do Office, from December 16, 1978 to January 23, 1979, Defendant D and E, from January 4, 1979 to January 6, 1979, and each of the above Defendants was found to have been illegally detained or detained by the prosecutor during the interrogation process, and each of the above Defendants was found to have not been detained until January 17, 1979, and each of the above Defendants was found to have not been detained until January 23, 1979.

B. According to the third protocol of the trial of the case subject to reexamination, the probative value of the protocol of examination of the witness of the person A [related to Article 1-3 (a) of the facts charged] among the protocol of the trial of the case subject to reexamination, considering the following facts: (a) although it is acknowledged that the defendant testified that "the defendant A has made a false testimony that "the building is good and factory is good and good in North Korea" during the third trial of the case subject to reexamination, it is difficult to believe the protocol of examination of the witness as it is, in other words, under the circumstance that the court of this case duly adopted and investigated by the court, prepares a self-written statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged, in other words, under the circumstance that A is harsh from the police of the House Police Station prior to giving testimony, and is threatened from the police of the House Police Station prior to the testimony to arrest him as a crime of non-disclosure unless he gives testimony to the same purport as the facts charged.

C. According to the article 1-3 (b), 2-1 (b), 2-2 (2)-2 (b), and 3 of the trial record of the case subject to review of witness among the third trial records of the case subject to review of witness, B testified that the construction technology of North Korea is superior to South Korea on the third trial day of the case subject to review of witness of the case subject to review of witness of the court (related to the above article 1-3 (b), 2-1 (b), and 2-1 (3) of the case subject to review of witness of the court). In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, B was urged by the police station of the B to give testimony to the same effect as the facts charged prior to testimony of the case subject to review of witness of North Korea on the third trial date of the case subject to review of witness of the defendant at the third trial of the court below, B cannot reverse the above protocol of witness examination of North Korea on the 10th day of examination of witness of the court below.

D. According to each witness examination protocol of the case subject to reexamination of witness among the trial records of the third and the 10th trial of the case subject to reexamination of witness (as to Article 1-3-4 (d) and (f) of the facts subject to examination of witness of each wife (as to Article 1-3-4 (f) of the facts subject to reexamination of witness), each witness examination protocol of the case subject to reexamination of witness is recognized as having made a testimony that seems to correspond to the facts subject to this part of the charges on the third and the 10th trial of the case subject to reexamination of witness, but on the other hand, it is difficult to believe the above witness examination protocol of each witness examination of the case as is, considering the following facts admitted by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, in other words, in the situation where the witness was made cruel from the police of the Bupyeongan Police Station at the time of the testimony of the witness examination of this case, as well as from the above,

마. 재심 대상사건의 제10차 공판조서 중 , 戊에 대한 증인신문조서 공소사실 제1의 (2) 항 관련)

위 증인신문조서에 의하면, 피고인 A이 1974. 10. 16. 09:00경 어청도 서쪽 공해상에서 수덕호를 운행하여 서북방으로 약 30분간 항진하려 하였고, 이를 기관장인가 제지한 사실은 인정되나, 한편 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실, 즉 피고인 A은 당시 일본어선의 어획물을 절취할 목적으로 서북방 쪽으로 2일 간 위 수덕호를 운항한 것으로 보이는 사실, 피고인 A은 당시 수덕호 기관장 戊나 선원인 에게 북한으로의 탈출에 관한 어떠한 암시나 언급도 하지 않은 사실, 당시 위 수덕호에 실린 기름으로는 연평도까지 갈 수 없었던 사실 등에 비추어 보면 위 증인신문조서만으로 이 부분 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하기에 부족하다. 바. 재심대상사건의 제2차 공판조서 중 피고인 A의 일부 진술기재 부분의 증명력 {공소사실 제1의 (3)의 (나), (다), (라) 항 관련} 위 공판조서의 기재에 의하면, 피고인 A이 재심 대상사건의 제2차 공판기일에서 이 부분 공소사실 기재와 같은 취지의 말을 한 적이 있다는 취지로 진술한 사실, 그러나 피고인 A이 이 부분 공소사실 기재의 상피고인들에게 위와 같은 말을 한 것이 아니고 또한 북괴활동을 찬양 고무하기 위하여 위와 같은 말을 한 것도 아니라고 진술한 사실이 인정되는바, 위와 같은 사실만으로는 피고인 A이 위와 같은 말을 북괴를 찬양고무하거나 이롭게 할 의도 하에서 이를 인식하고 한 것이라고 인정하기 부족하고, 또한 특정 또는 불특정 다수인이 인식할 수 있는 상태 하에서 위와 같은 말을 한 것이라고 단정하기도 부족하다.

사. 재심 대상사건의 제2차 공판조서 중 庚의 진술기재 부분의 증명력 {공소사실 제1의 (3)의 (라), (바) 항 관련} 위 공판조서에 의하면, 庚이 재심 대상사건의 제2차 공판기일에 검사로부터 "피고인 A의 각종 범죄사실 일시, 장소에서 동인으로부터 동 범죄사실 내용과 같이 북괴를 찬양, 고무하는 언동을 듣고도 정보, 수사기관에 고지하지 아니한 사실이 있는가 요?"라는 질문을 받고 "예, 그런 말 하는 것을 2회 들은 일이 있습니다."라고 답변한 사실은 인정되나, 위 인정사실만으로는 피고인 A이 위와 같은 말을 북괴를 찬양 고무하거나 이롭게 할 의도 하에서 이를 인식하고 한 것이라고 인정하기 부족하다.

H. In addition to the evidence examined above, such as the court inspection protocol and the police seizure protocol, the evidence recognized as admissible, such as the above inspection protocol and the seizure protocol, and the witness A’s legal statement, it is insufficient to find the Defendants guilty of each of the charges in this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, each of the defendants is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendants is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

The presiding judge, Judge Song-hee

Judges Lee Young-ho

Judges Cho Chang-chul