1. Degree of reinforced evidence;

2. Timing to start a counter-espionage;

1. Reinforcement evidence of confessions shall not be direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, whole criminal facts, or anything or nothing about part of the facts;

2. In the event that a member of the North Korean leader’s official of the North Korean leader entered the Republic of Korea as part of his/her duty to collect various information in society, it is deemed that the entry had already started to perform a counter-espionage.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 98, 100, and 25 of the Criminal Act

66Do634 delivered on July 26, 1966 (Kadrid 3751; 14B-37; 310(8)1452 of the Supreme Court Decision 69Do643 delivered on June 10, 1969 (Kadrid 562; 17B-45 of the Supreme Court Decision; 310(1452 of the Criminal Procedure Act); 69Do1419 delivered on December 26, 196 (Kadrid 961; 17Do4164 delivered on April 16, 196; 315 of the Criminal Act; 70Do1737 delivered on October 23, 197; 196Da14519 delivered on December 26, 196; 36Do16519 delivered on December 25, 196 (No. 1452 of the Criminal Act);

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (74Gohap426)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twelve years and suspension of qualifications for twelve years.

One hundred and sixty days of detention days of the court below shall be included in the above imprisonment.

Attached 10,000 UN 10,000 and two master planers (No. 1,3,4) shall be confiscated.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (a) the defendant, as a public artist in South and North Korea, was clearly locked in South Korea; (b) it is obvious that he collected national secrets from South and North Korea on his duty; and (c) even if he did not receive any specific order of the detection and collection of secrets, he shall be deemed to have commenced the counter-espionage when he had been engaged in the mission of the public official in South and North Korea; (d) however, the judgment of the court below which did not reach this point is erroneous by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment;

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s defense counsel is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not have committed the principal offense; (b) the Defendant erred in selecting the evidence or found the Defendant guilty without any evident supporting evidence based only on the confessions of the Defendant; and (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts affecting the judgment; and (d) the purport of the judgment of the lower court is that the sentencing is extremely unreasonable

Therefore, I first examine the defendant's argument of misunderstanding of facts, and then examine the various evidences lawfully examined and adopted by the court below in light of the records, the defendant confessions all the facts found by the court below in the court of original instance. The defendant's evidence as a supporting evidence for confessions is admissible as well as circumstantial evidence, and it is not necessary to reinforce all the facts, but there is evidence to reinforce them in part. Thus, since evidence other than the defendant's statement adopted by the court of original instance is sufficient as a supporting evidence, it is sufficient to recognize facts at the time of original trial in consideration of the defendant's confession and the above evidence, and there is no other error of law as pointed out in the process of fact-finding by the court of original trial, the defendant's assertion that the facts were erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence cannot be accepted.

Next, the prosecutor's first ground of appeal is examined prior to the prosecutor's judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant was included in the non-indicted 1 and 2 (the non-indicted 30 years of age) who was a member of an anti-government organization, and became a member of the Joseon Culture Council, which is an anti-government organization, and is employed as an accounting officer of the above Research Council, and entered the mother country exam to obtain safe status for the so-called "An inter-government organization's projects" under his direction, and entered the Seoul National University Educational Institute for Koreans to Korea for approximately three years before entering South Korea, and thus, the court below's decision that the defendant was not a member of the anti-government organization, and that the defendant was not a member of the anti-government organization, and thus, he was not a member of the South Korean government's order to establish the so-called "Seoul National Assembly's unification project" under the direction of the non-indicted 2 (the non-indicted 30 years of age and 30 years of age) to find out the facts of the North Korean National Assembly's unification project as a member of the North Korean National Assembly's Association's.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a party member is decided again after pleading.

The criminal facts of the defendant who is acknowledged as a party member and the summary of the evidence are criminal facts No. 14, and the defendant tried to act as a espionage by detecting and collecting various national secrets of politics, economy, and society from the above house at around 20:00 on May 3, 1974, but the defendant was arrested at the above house at around 20:00 on May 3, 1974, and the purpose is not achieved, and it is the same as that at the time of the original judgment, except for adding it to an attempt. Thus, this is cited by Article 369 of

Article 3 (1) of the Anti-Public Law; Article 5 (1) of the Anti-Public Law; Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides money and goods from a member of an anti-government organization; Article 4 (1) of the same Act provides that he has received money and goods from a member of an anti-government organization; Article 6 (4) and (3) of the same Act provides that he has taken part in the anti-government organization; Article 6 (4) and (3) of the same Act provides that he has taken part in the attempted act of an anti-government organization; Article 100 and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that he shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor; Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act provides that he shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor; Article 16 (1) of the same Act provides two years among the prescribed types; Article 100 and Article 98 (1) of the same Act provides several years of imprisonment with prison labor; Article 16 (1) of the National Security Act provides two years of imprisonment with prison labor or more; Article 16 (16) of the same Act provides two years of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge)