The legal significance of the crime of acceptance of money and valuables

It can not be said that the acceptance of money and valuables of 150,000 won which are provided through marriage between the people and the people are beneficial to anti-government organizations, and even if the meeting meets is inevitable for marriage personnel, it cannot be viewed that it constitutes a meeting crime.

Article 5 of the Antipublic Law (Abolition)

Defendant 1 and four others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul Criminal District Court (81 High Court Decision 567)

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life, seven years of imprisonment for term, and seven years of suspension of qualifications, by imprisonment for term of four years and four years of suspension of qualifications for Defendant 3, by imprisonment for term of three years and six months and suspension of qualifications for Defendant 4, respectively.

The 175 days each of the above imprisonment with prison labor as to the defendant 2, 3, and 4 shall be included in the day of detention prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment.

Of the facts charged, Defendant 3-2’s receipt of money and valuables, Defendant 4-2’s receipt of money and valuables, Defendant 4’s holding of meetings, and Defendant 4-3(A) of the facts charged are not guilty.

The appeal by the defendant 5 and the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant are all dismissed.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel is only five years of age when Nonindicted 1’s father’s face is unsatisfyed, and there exists no fact of escape from North Korea following it. The court below found the Defendants guilty of the charges by violating the rules of evidence in reliance on only confessions made by the investigation agency of the Defendant and the upper accused who were compelled to make an adviser according to the facts established by the operation of the investigation agency, and thereby violating the rules of evidence. In particular, as to the escape from the first point of time to October 30, 1971 at the time of the original adjudication, the Defendant is sufficiently able to prove absence of working at Pung International Office of 24 December 1969 to October 30, 1971, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the charges by mistake of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the court below found the Defendants guilty of the charges by mistake of facts as to each of the above attorneys’ grounds for appeal.

First, we examine the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts by Defendant 1. The court below rejected all the facts charged against the defendant. However, since the court below's protocol of examination of suspect prepared by the public prosecutor denies the whole charges against the defendant, the confession by the defendant is made in whole, and even according to the above defendant's statement in the court below and the trial court, it cannot be said that the confession by the public prosecutor is not voluntary. In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is proved that all the facts charged by the defendant are proved, and each statement by Non-Indicted 2 and 3 in the court room delivered to the purport that it is proved that the defendant was located in the Republic of Korea for 17 days as stated in the indictment until the escape of the defendant by the escape of the defendant, each statement by the witness at the court of the court room, which was made by the defendant, was made only by the witness with the defendant, or between the time when the witness was made and the above period, and thus, it cannot be accepted. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

Next, in full view of the health department, the prosecutorial statement of the above defendant 4, the prosecutorial statement of the above defendant 1 and other legitimate evidence shown in the records as to the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts by the defendant 2, the facts charged by the defendant is proved, and there is no ground to believe that

However, in light of various circumstances, including health care, the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, as to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s main text of unfair sentencing and the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing against Defendant 2 by the prosecutor, the lower court’s appeal on the above Defendants is reasonable in that the amount of punishment against the above Defendants is considered to be too unreasonable, and therefore, the lower court’s judgment cannot be reversed.

Next, Defendant 3 and 4's grounds of appeal on the mistake of facts are examined. Defendant 3-2 at the time of the original judgment, Defendant 4's acceptance of money and valuables, Defendant 4-2 at the time of Defendant 4's original judgment, and Defendant 4-3 (A) meetings are not proven or not guilty, as shown in the following: Provided, That the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant 3 and 4 of the above facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of receiving money and valuables or the crime of meeting in public law, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in this respect without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.

Finally, in light of the records, after examining the appeal by Defendant 5 and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendant, the first instance court's determination of the sentence against the Defendant is proper, and the evidence duly adopted by the court below after examining the evidence. In light of the records, there is no error of law as pointed out in the arguments in the process of fact-finding of the court below, and the following facts are examined in detail, such as the motive, means, result, degree of damage, the age and character of the Defendant, character and conduct of the Defendant, environment, and circumstances after the crime. In light of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant or prosecutor, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant or prosecutor, it is not thought that the determination of the sentence against the Defendant by the court below is too weak, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor are not acceptable.

Therefore, with respect to the appeal filed by Defendant 5 and the prosecutor's appeal filed by the same defendant, it shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and with respect to the appeal filed by Defendant 1, 2, 3 and 4 pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, part of the judgment below against Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment below shall be reversed,

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 as stated by a member of the party, and the summary of the evidence thereof are as follows: (a) deleted 3-2 of the facts constituting the crime at the time of Defendant 3’s original adjudication; (b) corrected 3-3 as 3-2; and (c) deleted 4-2 and 4-3 (a) from among the facts stated in the judgment above by Defendant 4; and (d) deleted 4-3 (b) from among the facts described in the judgment above by Defendant 4 and corrected 4-2 as 4-2, it is the same as at the time of the original adjudication, and thus, it is cited in accordance with

As to the violation of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Dec. 31, 1980) under the proviso of Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Security Act (Act No. 3318 of Dec. 31, 1980), the main text of Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act should be applied to the violation of the former National Security Act (Act No. 549 of Dec. 31, 1980).

Defendant 1-1 and 3 of the National Security Act shall be imposed on each of the above crimes under Article 6 (4) and (3) of the National Security Act; Article 1-2 of the judgment shall be imposed on each of the above crimes under Article 2 of the National Security Act; Article 98 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 1-5 (b) of the judgment on each of the above crimes under Article 2-1 of the Act; Article 3-1 of the Act shall be imposed on each of the crimes under Article 4 of the former Act; Article 4-1 of the former Act shall be imposed on each of the crimes under Article 6 (1) and Article 6 (1) of the Act; Article 3 of the former Act shall be imposed on each of the crimes under Article 6 (4) and Article 6 (2) of the former Act; Article 4-1 of the former Act shall be punished on each of the crimes under Article 6 (3) of the same Act; Article 6-2 of the former Act shall be punished on each of the crimes under Article 3-1 of the former Act.

First of all the facts charged, the defendant 3 received money from the defendant 2 at the above office around 18:00 on March 14, 1979, with the knowledge that he would be entitled to receive 150,000 won for marriage expenses from the defendant 4 at the above office of the defendant 2 and he would benefit from anti-government organization (the fact that the defendant 3-2 was original adjudication). The defendant 4 received money from the defendant 2 at the above office of the defendant 4 at the above office of Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, 101, 101, and the defendant 4 did not receive money from the defendant 3 at the same time because he knew that he would not receive money from the defendant 3 at the same time, and he could not receive money from the defendant 4 at the same time from the above office of the defendant 1 to the defendant 3 at the above office of the defendant 4 at the same time, and he could not receive money from the defendant 20,000 won for marriage expenses.

The following facts in the facts charged: (a) around 14:00 on March 13, 1979, Defendant 4 showed Nonindicted 4’s photograph and letter to Nonindicted 5’s wife, where Defendant 2 had his father at the house of Defendant 2, 1, 3, and 5, and 6, etc., who had come to a new marriage history; and (b) “I throw away many things related to the collapse, and left in this writing and photograph,” and “I would like to give separate and special consent and profit-making, I would like to hear the words of advertising Nonindicted 1, and I would like to say, “I would like to say I would like to know that I would live in his father even if I would do so, I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would have been married, I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know his father.

Ultimately, each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime or is not a crime, and thus, acquittal is rendered by applying Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)