Whether a violation of Article 4(1) of the Anti-Public Law and a violation of subparagraph 9(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 of the Republic of Korea are mutually concurrent.

At the same time, both the same act and the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 91 for the protection of national security and public order are in a mutually competitive relationship.

Article 4 of the Public Law, Article 40 of the Criminal Code of Paragraph 1, Article 9 of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 to protect national security and public order

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (75 Gohap99, 76 Gohap24)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and suspension of qualifications for two years.

One hundred forty-five days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel in relation to paragraph (1) among the facts charged in this case, although the defendant was under the condition of mental disorder by drinking only at that time, the court below recognized it as a mental disorder only, and there was no crime in relation to paragraph (2). The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts that may affect the judgment, and the prosecutor's summary of the grounds for appeal by the court below is unreasonable since the amount of punishment imposed by the defendant is uneasible.

Therefore, in light of the records, the first review of the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts, and the review of the evidence duly adopted by the court below in light of the records, as decided by the court below, it cannot be accepted as the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts since it can not be recognized that the defendant was a quasi-incompetent under the influence of alcohol, but it can not be recognized that the defendant was a quasi-incompetent under the influence of alcohol, and it also can be sufficiently recognized that the facts of this case are facts constituting

However, if we consider ex officio the various circumstances such as the following: the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, result, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the amount of the sentence against the defendant is considered to be too unreasonable. Therefore, the appeal by the court below is reasonable, and therefore, the reversal of the judgment below is not dismissed.

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

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

Since the criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Each so-called judgment falls under Articles 4(1) and 16 of the Anti-Public Law, Article 11 of the National Security Act, Article 7(7) and Article 50(1)(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order. Since a single act is committed several crimes, one of them shall be punished under Articles 40 and 50(2) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant may be deemed to have committed a crime under Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, which provides for a crime of violation of Emergency Decree 9, among which punishment is imposed pursuant to Articles 40 and 50(2) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant may be deemed to have committed a crime under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act, since he/she has a weak ability to distinguish things at the time of the crime under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and a crime under Article 38(1)2 and 50(3) of the National Security Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and five years under the Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)