A. In the formation of a crime of violation of Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act, a part of the formula for the purpose;

(b) Whether it falls under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act, in cases where it is used as teaching materials for food, clothing, or learning by extracting only scarcitys from among the sales books in the market;

(c) The meaning of an assembly under Article 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

(d) The inclusion of days of detention in the court and discretion of the court;

A. The act of benefiting an anti-government organization under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act does not require the person who committed the act with the intent or intent to commit it. However, if such an act is perceived as an act of praiseing an anti-government organization, it shall be sufficient.

B. Even if the booker used as the teaching material for the study of the food of this case sells not only the French book but also the general time book, it is reasonable to view that there was a perception that some of the booker, as long as he participated in discussions that encourage or aid the activities of anti-government organizations, and only the above part was created and used as teaching material for the study of the food of this case, and that he participated in the discussions that were used as teaching material for the study of the food of this case, and that he participated in it, and unless there were special circumstances, he was an perception that such speecher and debate was an act of praiseing, encouraging, or acting in concert with anti-government organizations.

(c) An assembly under Article 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act means that a specific or unspecified number of people temporarily gather at a certain place for a specific purpose, and there is no limitation on the gathering, the place of gathering, or the majority of people.

D. Whether the number of days pending trial prior to the pronouncement of judgment should be included in the principal sentence or not belongs to the discretion of the court of judgment.

(a) Article 7(1) of the National Security Act; Article 57(d) of the Criminal Act; Article 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983, 83Do185 delivered on March 22, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 83No348 delivered on August 20, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The period of detention pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for 40 days.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) In light of the records, there is no ground to view that the court below's written statement of the defendant in the preparation of the military investigative agency's written indictment and the co-defendant in the court below's written indictment against the defendant as evidence not admitted as evidence, and that each statement of the defendant in the court below's written indictment against the co-defendant in the court below as evidence and the defendant in the court below's written indictment against the co-defendant in the judgment of the court below is not used as evidence for recognition of the facts of the crime of this case. No ground exists to view that each statement in the defendant and the co-defendant in the court below's joint defendant, the truth-injury, and the prosecutor's office's written indictment in the court below's office in the court below's written indictment against the defendant and the co-defendant in the court below's written indictment against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance

(2) The so-called anti-government organization under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act or its members, or those who received the order, do not need to be aware that such an act constitutes an act of praiseing, encouraging, or assisting in, or aiding and abetting anti-government organization by other means. However, if such an act is recognized as an act of praiseing anti-government organization, it shall be sufficient to view that the act is carried out. Thus, even if the booker used as the teaching material for the instant case's decoration learning is sold in the general public, it shall be reasonable for the court below to view that the part among the booker's books is praise, encouraging, or assisting in the activities of anti-government organization, and that only the above part was discovered, and that the defendant participated in the debate, and provided the same opinion as the criminal facts of this case, and that the defendant's act of praise, encouraging, or aiding anti-government organization, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the court below's decision was justified in its determination that there was a considerable limit to the assembly or demonstration.

There is no illegality in the theory of lawsuit.

(3) As long as the number of days of pre-trial detention is not naturally calculated, whether the whole amount of days of pre-trial detention should be included in the principal sentence or only part thereof should be included in the free judgment of the judgment court, the judgment below cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that only a part of the days of pre-trial detention should be included in the principal sentence and the remainder should not be included in the principal sentence. In addition, as in the theory of lawsuit, even if the previous meetings were investigated by the police and the previous disciplinary measures were taken against the person of pre-trial guard training center, such facts alone cannot be considered to affect the validity of the instant indictment, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young