A. The meaning of a counter-espionage act under Article 2 of the former National Security Act (No. 549, Jun. 10, 1960) and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act

(b) Matters concerning confidential information which constitutes the elements of a counter-espionage, and how to explain the circumstances of the counter-espionage.

(c) The relationship of legal application based on whether the knowledge of military secrets divulged to an enemy country is related to his/her duties;

A. A. A secret under Article 2 of the former National Security Act (No. 549, Jun. 10, 1960) and Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act refers to not only a simple secret, but also to detection and solicitation of all confidential matters that are beneficial to our country as well as to not notify or confirm to the North Korean group of North Korea's national defense through various aspects, such as politics, economy, society, culture, thought, etc., and as long as it falls under such secret, even if reported and known in newspapers, magazines, radio, etc., in the Republic of Korea, if it is favorable to the North Korean group, it shall be deemed that the above confidential matters are also included. However, it does not constitute a secret.

B. If the judgment of the court below does not regard matters concerning the defendant's simple activity status as confidential matters subject to the act of a counter-espionage, but merely states the facts of a counter-espionage act, such facts should be clearly divided into such facts and the contents of confidential information, which constitutes the elements of a counter-espionage.

C. A counter-espionage act under Article 98(1) of the former National Security Act, cited by Article 2 of the same Act, refers to not only the military affairs of the Republic of Korea, but also the detection and solicitation of books, documents, and things such as politics, economy, society, culture, thought, etc., or military secrets. In a case where a person who becomes aware of military secrets in the course of performing his/her duties discloses them to an enemy country, it constitutes a general crime under Article 99 of the Criminal Act in a case where a person who becomes aware of military secrets regardless of his/her duties discloses them to an enemy country.

A. Article 2 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 1960). Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 98 of the Criminal Act. Article 2 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Jun. 10, 196), Articles 98(1), 98(2), and 99 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Do678 Decided July 31, 1968 75Do1514 Decided September 12, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 75Do862 Decided May 13, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 76Do3097 Decided December 14, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 81Do3063 Decided February 23, 1982

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee In-bok

Seoul High Court Decision 82No1223 delivered on July 16, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the Defendant’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1.

(1) The summary of the facts constituting the crime of 3,5,9,12,15 of the first trial acknowledged by the court below as a counter-espionage act is as follows.

즉 피고인은 「3. 1973.8.초순 17:00경 오사까시내에 있는 옥호불상 호텔에서 동 시무라와 접선, 회합하고 그에게 지령사항에 대한 실천사업보고로서, ① 서울대학교 부설 재외국민교육연구소에 입소, 한국어를 배우고 있는데 학생수는 100여명이다. ② 하숙은 서울시 성북구 공능동에 정했는데 월 하숙비는 5만원이다. ③ 서울대 종교과 2년에 재학중인 남유진과 교포유학생 손진호, 동 정문식, 동 이경자, 동 김승하와 친교하면서 그 의식을 요해 중이다. ④ 경부고속도로상에는 유사시에 비행기활주로로 사용이 가능한 지점이 3개소가 있다. ⑤ 인천시 북구 산곡2동 소재 고모부 의 집부근에는 한국군부대, 공수부대, 미군부대 등 3개의 군부대가 주둔하고 있다라는 등의 피고인이 탐지·수집한 국가기밀을 보고하여 누설함으로써 반국가단체의 구성원으로부터 지령을 받은 자로서 그 목적 수행을 위하여 간첩하고,」 「 5. ① 1973.11월 일자불상 16:00경 피고인의 하숙집 부근에서 성명불상 여인들의 대화로부터 " 학생과 경찰이 대결하게 되면 아무래도 우리들은 학생편이 된다" 는 말을 엿들어 주민의 의식성향을 탐지하고, ② 그경 요해 중이던 남유진은 정치성향의 부족으로 요해대상이 될 수 없다고 판단한 채 동년 12월초경 동 연구소를 수료하고 동년 12.19. 14:00경 김포공항을 출발 동일 16:00경 오사까에 도착하고 동년 12월말 18:00경 일본 나고야역전 와이키키 다방에서 동 시무라와 접선, 회합하고 그에게 사업보고로서, 연구소 수료후 고려대학에 입학케 되었다. 요해 중이던 남유진은 계속 요해한 결과 정치 성향의 부족으로 포섭대상이 될 수 없다. 남한주민들은 학생과 경찰이 대결하게 되면 결국 학생편에 서게 될 것이다라는 사실을 보고, 누설함으로써 반국가단체의 구성원으로부터 지령을 받은 자로서 그 목적 수행을 위하여 간첩하고」, 「9. 1974.12.5.17:00경 일본 나고야역 구내 일본식당에서 위 시무라와 접선, 회합하고 그에게 사업보고로서, ① 고대를 비롯한 전국 대학생들의 시위로 인해 조기방학이 되어 귀일하였다. ② 고대학생 시위에 1차 참가했는데 시위의 구호는 구속학생 및 구속인사석방, 유신헌법철폐, 언론자유보장, 학원사찰중지 이다. ③ 요해학생중 오기석이 군에 입대하고 고대 영문과 3년에 재학중인 이규상을 요해대상자로 추가 선정하였다. ④ 서울 태능부근에 육군사관학교가 위치하고 있다라는 사실을 보고, 누설하면서 고대 시위 참가시에 습득하였던 유인물 3매를 전달함으로써 반국가단체의 구성원으로부터 지령을 받은 자로서 그 목적 수행을 위하여 간첩하고」, 「12. 1975.8.14. 17:00경 나고야역전 터미널호텔에서 위 시무라와 접선, 회합하여 그와 1박하면서 그에게 사업보고로서, ① 3학년1학기는 4.8 민청학련사건으로 학생데모가 계속되어 제대로 공부를 못하였다. ② 학생데모의 양상은 극렬하였으며 각 대학에 휴교령이 내리고 군인들이 대학을 점령 경비하고 있다 . ③ 하숙처를 고대 앞에서 수유동으로 옮겼다. ④ 고대 법대 1년생 최동석을 요해 중인데 정치성은 좋으나 포섭에는 시일이 요할것 같으며, 이규상도 아울러 요해 중이다. ⑤ 하숙방에서 평양방송, 통혁당 목소리방송을 청취코저 시도했으나 수신상태가 나쁘다. ⑥ 하얀모래밭에는 울타리가 있고 울타리밖 해안쪽에는 군인들이 모래를 비로 쓸어두어 야간에 간첩이 침투하면 발자국이 나게 되어 간첩이 침투한 사실을 파악하게 된다는 등 피고인이 탐지, 수집한 군사기밀을 보고, 누설함으로써 반국가단체의 구성원으로부터 지령을 받은 자로서 그 목적 수행을 위하여 간첩하고」, 「15. 1976.1.3.13:50경 나고야시 나가구 사가에죠 쥬니찌(명고옥시 중구 영정중일) 빌딩 2층 옥호불상 다방에서 동 시무라와 접선, 회합하여 그에게 사업보고로서, ① 이수희가 12월초 군수사기관에 연행되어 갔다. ② 학습자료를 당황한 나머지 자취방 책상설합속에 두고 왔다. ③ 1975.9월초 요해대상자인 오기석을 면회하러 경남 창원에 갔다가 출장으로 면회치 못하였으나 39사단 부대의 위치 및 그 시설(콘셋트 형태), 군인면회 절차, 위병의 근무상태, 군인들이 부대에 인접한 민간인 점포를 통해 우편물의 발·수신을 하고 있는 상태등 피고인이 탐지, 수집한 군사상 기밀을 보고·누설함으로써 반국가단체로부터 지령을 받은 자가 그 목적 수행을 위하여 간첩하였다」는 것이다.

(2) The term "espionage" under Article 2 of the former National Security Act (Law No. 549, Jun. 10, 1960) and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act means detection and collection of all confidential information that is beneficial to the Republic of Korea as well as that that is not known or confirmed to the North Korean national defense North Korean group through each area such as politics, economy, society, culture, thought, etc., and as long as it falls under such confidential information, even if it is reported and known to the newspaper, magazine, radio, etc. in Korea, if it becomes favorable material to the North Korean leader group, it shall be deemed that the above matters are also included in the confidential information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Do678, Jul. 31, 1968; 75Do1514, Sept. 12, 1972; 76Do3097, Dec. 14, 1976).

However, from among the matters that the first instance court decided that the report was confidential, the third fact was determined in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government's official ability, which is 50,000 won. The Seoul National Assembly and the second year's students' grandchildren, emotional rule, Lee Jong-jin, Lee Jong-chul, and Kim Jong-chul, the five facts were admitted to the Korean University after the completion of the research institute.The fact that the South Korean National Assembly, which was in the last year, could not be included in the lack of political inclination as a result of continuous necessity of political intervention, 9 facts, and the defendant's early science was not confirmed due to the demonstration by the national students, including North Korea.The fact that the 1st anniversary of the number of students who were in need of 1st century, the defendant was selected as the target of this rule in English and the second year's official election, and the rest of the 12th anniversary of the fact that he/she was living in the Republic of Korea, and the defendant was not aware of the fact that he/she had been living in the Republic of Korea.

If the first instance court did not consider each of the above matters as confidential matters subject to the act of a counter-espionage, but merely explained as a fact constituting a counter-espionage, it is necessary to clearly distinguish such circumstances and the contents of confidential information, which is a constituent element of a counter-espionage.

(3) In addition, Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act, cited in Article 2 of the former National Security Act, refers to a secret or a grave that is used to inform an enemy nation of such fact as well as a military ideology of the Republic of Korea, such as politics, economy, society, culture, and thought, or detection and collection of books and things. In a case where a person who becomes aware of military secrets in the course of performing his duties discloses it to an enemy nation, a person who becomes aware of military secrets regardless of his duties, regardless of his duties, constitutes a general offence under Article 99 of the Criminal Act in a case where he discloses it to an enemy nation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Do862, May 13, 1975; 81Do3063, Feb. 23, 1982; 82Do8296, Jul. 13, 1982).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance held that the defendant was a person who was ordered by members of anti-government organizations and was sypted to achieve its purpose by reporting and divulging the contents known to him through detection and collection as stated in its reasoning to the non-indicted Professor, who was a member of anti-government organizations, and applying Article 2 of the former National Security Act and Article 98 of the Criminal Act.

This does not necessarily mean that the defendant's act of detection and collection is recognized as a counter-espionage act. Thus, the above reporting and disclosure cannot be seen as a counter-espionage act under Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act. Even if based on the facts of the first instance judgment, it is difficult to view the matters detected and collected by the defendant as confidential in the course of performing his/her duties. It is clear that the act of leakage cannot be seen as a disclosure of confidential information under Article 98 (2) of the Criminal Act.

(4) Ultimately, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements of a espionage crime under Article 2 of the former National Security Act and Article 98 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, but the court below cannot dismiss the destruction because it maintains it as it is.

2. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)