All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The “the identity of an employee of the NIS who contacted with North Korean defectors H and H” who was ordered to detect a misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the National Security Act (espionage) or misapprehension of legal principles does not constitute State secrets. In addition, since the Defendant continued to be investigated in a state of being separated from the outside after entry into the Republic of Korea, and there was no act to detect State secrets, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have started to commit a espionage crime. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for the exclusion of liability, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The Defendant did not punish the Defendant under Article 12 of the Criminal Act, on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby causing direct or indirect harm to the life or body of the Defendant’s family members, thereby resulting in the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that each of the instant crimes constituted coercion, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) misunderstanding of facts concerning self-denunciation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the reduction of or exemption from punishment against the Defendant under Article 16 subparag. 1 of the National Security Act, since the Defendant voluntarily surrendered by undergoing an investigation by the National Intelligence Service’s Central Joint Examination Center, and voluntarily surrenders to the Defendant on the instant criminal facts. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 4) In so doing, the lower court’s decision that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to an unfair sentencing sentence (three years of imprisonment, three years of suspension

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too excessive.