If the content of information is about general matters which do not belong to military secrets or national secrets but is provided by an anti-state organization in a mutually advantageous manner, it constitutes an act of benefiting anti-state organizations under Article 4(1) of the Anti-Public Law.

Even though the contents of information are general matters not belonging to military secrets or national secrets, if it is provided by the method of benefiting anti-government organizations, it constitutes an act of benefiting anti-government organizations under Article 4 (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act.

Article 4(1) of the Antipublic Law

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 66No1434 decided May 22, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant’s grounds of appeal are determined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court maintained by the court below, although the defendant was fully aware of the fact that he included the Republic of Korea in accordance with the North Korea's order, collected various information throughout the politics, economy, society, and culture of the Republic of Korea, and that he was engaged in the activities to benefit North Korea, and although the non-indicted was aware that he was a full-time member of the North Korea, he informed the non-indicted's domestic situation and transferred it to the anti-state organization by questioning of the non-indicted as in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, there is no violation of evidence of the court below's finding the above facts, and in the provision of information as an act of benefiting the anti-state organization (including foreign public relations) by other means under Article 4 (1) of the anti-public law, if the contents of information are related to the general situation that does not belong to military secrets or national secrets, if it is provided by the anti-government organization, it cannot be accepted as an unlawful interpretation of the judgment of the first instance court.

No. 2, even if the evidence cited by the court of first instance maintained by the court below was examined in detail in light of the records, it is not possible to find out that the confession of the defendant does not constitute a single confession, and the above evidence can be sufficient evidence to prove the confession of the defendant as evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no illegality of finding facts without any supporting evidence, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence in recognizing facts at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence in finding facts at the time of the judgment

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)