(a)Articles 5 and 7 of the Anti-Public Law and subjective recognition;

(b) Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law and obligations to notify;

The crime of non-disclosure under Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law does not mean that the duty of disclosure takes place unless the principal offender enters our country, even though the principal offender was aware that he/she does an anti-state act outside the territory of the Republic of Korea.

Article 5 of the Anti-Public Law, Article 7 of the Anti-Public Law, Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law

Defendant 1 and five others

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 66No195 delivered on September 12, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 66No195 delivered on September 12, 1966

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not recognize all the facts charged by the prosecutor, since the court below did not fully recognize the fact that the defendant's Gok-si was aware that the defendant's Gok-si was a person who committed the crime of anti-public law or the National Security Act, and that the defendant's act of the defendant's act of the defendant was offered convenience in the manner such as Won-si, and that it would be the benefit of anti-public law or foreign public peace. Accordingly, it is legitimate for the court below to have acquitted the defendants on the grounds that there was no subjective awareness prior to the violation of Article 7 of the Anti-public law against Gok-si, the defendant's misuse, and the violation of Article 5 of the Anti-public law against Mak-si, and that the defendant's act of the defendant's act was not a crime of providing human convenience as alleged in the reasoning of the judgment, and it is not a legitimate explanation to the effect that the defendant's act was not a crime of providing human convenience, as argued in the reasoning.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

In order to establish the crime of non-disclosure stipulated in Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law, this crime is a crime under Articles 3 through 7 of the same Act in an area under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, or a crime under Articles 3 through 7 of the same Act was committed outside the Republic of Korea, or a crime under Article 8 of the same Act was committed outside the Republic of Korea, and the recognition of the fact was made within the Republic of Korea. However, the original judgment is justifiable in holding that the prosecutor's charges of non-disclosure under Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law were not notified to the investigation agency after he was found to be the person who committed the anti-state act in Japan at the time when he stays in Japan. However, the crime of non-disclosure under Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law was committed only when the principal offender was aware of the anti-state act in the area under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea. Even if the principal offender was aware that he did not perform the anti-state act outside the territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, it cannot be viewed that the duty of disclosure takes place in the public law.

Justices Choi Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)