A. Whether Article 2 (2) of the Addenda to the National Security Act provides that the National Security Act prior to the amendment shall apply to crimes committed prior to the enforcement of the amended Act (affirmative) and whether Article 13 (2) of the Addenda to the National Security Act violates the Constitution (negative)

B. The meaning of national secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act

(c) Requirements for establishing a crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the same Act.

D. Whether the purpose of Article 7(5) of the same Act is sufficient to obtain dolusence (affirmative), and whether the act is presumed to have had dolusence as if it acquired or possessed, while recognizing such awareness, the expressive materials containing contents that may benefit or benefit an anti-government organization or its activities (affirmative)

A. Article 4(1)2 of the National Security Act prior to the amendment was amended by Act No. 4373 on May 31, 191, and the punishment was changed in favor of the defendant. However, according to Article 1 and Article 1(2) of the Addenda of the above amended Act, this Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation, but it shall be governed by the previous provisions in the application of penal provisions to the acts prior to its enforcement. Thus, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, the measures applying the National Security Act prior to the enactment of the above amended Act are justifiable, and the principle of non-payment of punishment under Article 13 of the Constitution is aimed at promoting the legal stability of the people by prohibiting punishment under the ex post facto law from becoming effective and punishing a crime. Thus, Article 13(2) of the Addenda of the above amended Act does not violate Article 13 of the Constitution.

B. State secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act include all state secrets related to each aspect of politics, economy, society, culture, etc., not limited to state secrets within a net sense. Even if such secrets are widely known in the Republic of Korea through newspaper articles or through a book legally published in the Republic of Korea, if they are favorable to North Korea, which is anti-government organizations, and if they are likely to cause disadvantages to the Republic of Korea, they belong to state secrets.

C. The crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the same Act is established by accepting money and valuables with the knowledge of the fact that the delivery of money and valuables is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who is ordered to do so, and that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

D. The purpose of Article 7 (5) of the same Act is not to make positive or conclusive perceptions about Paragraph (1) and it satisfies with dolusent perceptions. Thus, the defendant's perception that the contents of the expressive material objectively reflects the aptitude of North Korea, such as acting in concert with the activities of North Korea, which are anti-government organizations. Furthermore, if there is a dolusent perception that such act would be an anti-government organization, the elements of the above provision are satisfied. In addition, the elements of the above provision are satisfied. In addition, if the defendant acquired or possessed the expressive material containing the contents that would benefit or benefit from the activities of North Korea, which are anti-government organizations, by acting in concert with the activities of publicity, in concert with the activities of North Korea, which are anti-government organizations, and it is presumed that there is no dolusent perception that the act would be an act identical to the above contents of the expressive material, and therefore, there was no objection to the above requirements, unless it appears that there was any academic research, solely for profit-making, or defense.

(a) Article 13 of the Constitution, Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Security Act, Article 4(1)2(c) of the same Act, Article 5(2)(d) of the same Act;

B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Do1846 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1984), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1367 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1205), Supreme Court Decision 85Do1367 delivered on December 10, 1985 (Gong1986, 276). Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do2033 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong192, 1466), Supreme Court Decision 91Do41 delivered on July 14, 1992

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Attorneys Long-term and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 92No1396 delivered on July 13, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant received any order from the lowest instructor on September 12, 1991 on the charge of diving on September 12, 191 under Article 29-29 of the facts charged, and the defendant returned home, and instead, it is acceptable to accept the reasoning of the judgment of the court below that the defendant acquitted him on the ground that he was under investigation by receiving self-injury on the facts constituting the crime of this case, and that he was not guilty of violating the rules of evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss

Defendant’s grounds of appeal and defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles.

Furthermore, health units;

As to the assertion that North Korea is not an anti-government organization

Since North Korea is a consistent view of the members of the National Security Act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do212 delivered on April 23, 1991). The court below's decision that held that North Korea constitutes an anti-government organization under the National Security Act as an "organization with the aim of disturbing the State" under the National Security Act is just, and there is no ground for illegality such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

As to the argument that the application of the National Security Act to the defendant is improper.

Examining the facts admitted by the court below in comparison with the records, the defendant's act of this case may be detrimental to anti-government organizations and may threaten the existence, security and free democratic basic order. Therefore, the court below's action which applied the National Security Act to this defendant's act cannot be deemed unlawful. Thus, there is no reason to view it.

As to the assertion that applying the National Security Act to the defendant before the amendment is unfair.

Article 4(1)2 of the National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191, which was applied by the court below to the defendant, was amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191, and the punishment was changed in favor of the defendant. However, according to Article 1 and Article 1(2) of the Addenda of the above amended Act, this Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation, but it shall be governed by the previous provisions in applying the National Security Act in the application of penal provisions to the act before its enforcement. Thus, notwithstanding Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, the court below is just in applying the above amended Act to the crime before the enforcement of the amended Act, and the principle of non-payment of punishment under Article 13 of the Constitution is aimed at promoting the legal stability of the people by prohibiting punishment by ex post facto law from being established and punished, and there is no reason to argue that Article 13(2) of the Addenda of the above amended Act violates the Constitution.

As to the defendant's argument on admissibility of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor

According to the records, the defendant acknowledged the admissibility of the interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor on the sixth trial date of the first instance court, and even if the defendant was forced to make a statement in the National Security Planning Department for Home Affairs, the defendant was examined eight times in the prosecutor's office, and examining the date and place of interrogation through the records, the contents of his statement, etc., it does not seem that there is any reason to suspect the voluntariness of the confession statement. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below employed the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office as evidence of guilt. There is no reason

As to detection, leakage, etc. of State secrets

Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act does not limit to state secrets within a net sense, but includes all state secrets in each area of politics, economy, society, culture, etc., and if such matters are widely known in the Republic of Korea through newspaper articles or through books, etc., it is advantageous to North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and if it can cause disadvantages to the Republic of Korea, it is an opinion of party member (Article 84Do1846, Oct. 23, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 91Do3, Mar. 12, 199; 91Do2495, Dec. 24, 199). In light of the evidence stated in the first instance judgment cited by the court below, the court below's findings of the court below against the defendant cannot be justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confession of evidence by the defendant in the evidence examination as well as the prosecutor's office.

As to the receipt of money and valuables

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the fact-finding of the court below as to the defendant's crime of this part is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and the crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act is established upon receiving money and valuables from an anti-government organization with the knowledge that the delivery of money and valuables is a member of the anti-government organization or a person who is ordered to do so, and that it may endanger the national existence, security, or free democratic fundamental order, and other matters are not the elements of the same crime (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 85Do1367, Dec. 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 91Do2495, Dec. 24, 199). The court below's decision with the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act, and there is no reason to criticize the judgment below.

As to the possession of pro-enemy materials

The purpose of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is not to limit the active desire or final recognition of Paragraph (1) and to meet with dolusence. Thus, the defendant's expression objectively viewed the contents of the expression as containing an objection, such as concerts with North Korea, which is an anti-government organization. Further, if there is a dolusence that such act would be conducted, the elements of the above provision shall be satisfied. In addition, if the defendant acquired or possessed the pro-enemy contents containing an objective perception of the contents which would be favorable or beneficial to the anti-government organization or its activities in concert with the activities such as propaganda of North Korea, inciting North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and then acquired or possessed them, it is presumed that there was an dolusence that the act would be an act identical to the above contents of the expression, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there was no misunderstanding of legal principles as to the facts-finding requirement as seen above.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

As to meetings, praises, rubbers, locking, and escape

In light of the records of the evidence in the first instance judgment cited by the court below, this part of the court below's finding of facts against the defendant is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and therefore there is no ground for discussion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)