(a) Whether there is jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea over persons who have committed offenses at the American Cultural Institute in the Republic of Korea;

(b) Details of a violation of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act and freedom of learning;

(c) Details of intent to commit a violation of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act;

A. Even if the U.S. cultural institute located in the Republic of Korea according to international agreements or practices regards the area of the territorial jurisdiction and its location as an extension of the territory of the United States, the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, which adopts the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, as long as the Republic of Korea first raised a public prosecution against the citizen of the Republic of Korea who committed the crime at that place and the United States did not assert its jurisdiction, naturally the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, which the U.S. cultural institute has adopted the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, is not

B. The crime of violation of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is established by producing, importing, copying, possessing, transporting, distributing, selling, or acquiring documents, books, or other expressive materials with the intention of pro-government organizations or their members or those who received an order in concert with it, or by acting in concert with it, for the purpose of pro-government organizations to commit an act of benefitting anti-government organizations. The freedom of academic studies under the Constitution is also legally protected only in the case of purely pursuing the research of truth. Thus, if a book containing the theory of revolution of anti-governmentism and the contents of ethnism for the purpose of benefiting anti-government organizations, it goes beyond the limit of academic freedom. Even if the book was inserted into the books already published in Korea, its legitimacy is not immediately acceptable, and if the contents of the book, etc. are pro-government organizations, it is not sufficient from the beginning to make such a translation or translation or translation.

C. The “act of benefiting an anti-government organization” under Article 7(1) of the National Security Act is objectively a benefit of an anti-government organization, and there is dolusent perception that the contents of the act can be objectively a benefit of an anti-government organization, and that the act may be recognized as benefit of, or may be benefit from, an anti-government organization, and it does not require the purpose of benefiting an anti-government organization

A. Article 3 of the Criminal Act; Article 7(5) of the National Security Act; Article 21 of the Constitution; Article 7(1) of the National Security Act

C. Supreme Court Decision 86Do33 Decided April 8, 1986

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jin-hee, Cho Jin-hee, Yellow iron, Park

Seoul High Court Decision 85No3184 decided Feb. 4, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The ninety days under detention after the appeal shall be included in each original sentence.

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

Article 2 of the Criminal Act provides that "this Act shall apply to nationals and foreigners who have committed a crime in the territory of the Republic of Korea," and adopts the territorialism, while Article 3 of the same Act provides that "this Act shall apply to nationals who have committed a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Korea," thereby adopting the territorialism."

Therefore, as argued in the arguments, even if the U.S. Cultural Institute located in Seoul by international agreements or practices regards it as an extension of the territory of the United States, the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, in which the U.S. court first raised a prosecution against the Defendants who committed an offense and the U.S. court did not assert its jurisdiction so far, shall naturally extend to the Defendants. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, which the U.S. Cultural Institute did not punish the Defendants, is not the exclusion of jurisdiction on the ground that the U.S. Cultural Institute did not have been punished against the Defendants. The argument is groundless.

2. We examine Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1.

Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that actions which are not contrary to social norms shall not be punished, so that, even in a case where certain actions are deemed to fall under the constituent elements of crime formally, if permissible in light of the sound moral sentiment of the general public on the basis of national law and order, it shall not be punished on the basis of justifiable acts.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the defendant's act of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Special obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Injury by Violence, etc., and rejected the defendants' assertion that the defendant's act of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., was legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, based on the result of analysis of the defendant's act in terms of its purpose and method, protection interest and the equality of infringement interest, supplementary nature and urgency as to the act that could not be used any other means except the act, and as a result, it is not permissible in light of the sound moral sentiment of the general public based on the national law order.

This paper argues that the judgment of the court below is merely a broom in light of the perception of modern history of Korea and the historical relationship with Korea and the United States, which is based on the process of developing ideas and history understood by the defendant like the broom.

Ultimately, in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. Furthermore, the argument that the defendant's act is improper to judge in violation of the positive law under the recognition of the situation such as the argument is nothing more than that of the same defendant's act as a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms.

In the trial of specific cases, judges are able to interpret and apply the law, but they cannot deny the law by referring to any idea or ideology.

3. Each of the grounds of appeal No. 2 by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel and his defense counsel Lee Jae-hee and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

A. The crime of violation of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is established by producing, importing, copying, possessing, transporting, distributing, selling, or acquiring documents, books, or other representations that may benefit an anti-government organization with the intention of praiseing, encouraging, or aiding and abetting the activities of anti-government organization or its members, or by other means, and the freedom of academic studies under the Constitution is also legally protected only in a case where it is purely intended for the investigation of truth. Thus, if a book containing the theory of revolution and efficition of anti-governmentism for the purpose of benefit of anti-government organizations, it goes beyond the limit of academic freedom. Even if the book was introduced by the book, it does not necessarily mean that its legality is not always acceptable, and if the contents of the book, etc. are favorable to the book, etc., then it is not sufficient to first be reproduced or copied for such purpose.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant's intensive search by the same defendant was for the purpose of benefiting anti-government organizations even though it is a content that is favorable to anti-government organizations, including three-dimensional contradictions of the nationalism, the fluoral nature of the professional Lesa Revolution, the location of farmers as a union group in the professional Lesa Revolution revolution, the step-by-step hostile strategy and tactical plan, etc.

In light of the records, the court below's decision is acceptable and there is no evidence that found facts without any evidence, since the strict proof of the dual purpose of the argument is not possible.

In addition, the defendant cannot be deemed to have possessed the reproduction of this case only for pure academic purposes on the ground that he was attending the fourth grade of the university, and even if the above thesis was cited from other books published in Korea, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of this case.

B. As to the violation of Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act

Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act provides that "an act of benefitting an anti-government organization" can objectively be an interest of an anti-government organization, and there is a dolusent perception that the act may be perceived as benefit of an anti-government organization, or may be benefit therefrom, and it does not require the purpose of the act to benefit an anti-government organization.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the fact that the contents of the poster or printed article in the decision are consistent with the speculative propaganda of North Korea, most of which are publicly known, and that the above defendant is a university student at a high level of knowledge, the court below held that there was a conclusive or dolusent perception that the defendant's act in the decision of the court below was in concert with the propaganda activities of North Korea concerning unification and is likely

In addition, as pointed out in the paper, even if the defendant saw him as the vice-chairperson of the Seoul National University's total student association and produced the above poster or printed matter as part of the election campaign and led the poster only within the school, the organization of the crime of this case is not affected.

Ultimately, the decision of the court below is just and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles or the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal. All arguments are groundless.

4. According to the statement in the statement of the grounds of appeal filed by Defendant 2, the grounds for appeal by the Defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the grounds for appeal as to the existence of jurisdiction over the above Defendants’ appeal for Park Jong-chul were determined earlier.

5. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)