2018Gohap71 A. Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act

B. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

(c) A perjury;

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(a) B

3.(a) C

4.(a)D

The Kim Sung-hun (prosecution), Hudon, decoration, Kim Tae-hun, Madon, Madon, Lee Jong-chul, and Lee Madon (Trial)

Law Firm Jin (for Defendant A)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Law Firm LBnB Partners (for Defendant A),

Attorney Choi Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm B (for the defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Attorney Hong Pung-si (Apon for Defendant C, D)

August 17, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and suspension of qualification for the crimes of 1-A and one year for the crimes of 2-year, and by imprisonment for six months for the crimes of 2-A, by imprisonment with prison labor for each of 10 months and suspension of qualifications for one year for the crimes of 1-A.

However, with respect to the defendant B, C, and D, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

【Status of Defendant and Related Persons】

Defendant A serves as the team leader of the NIS H team from E to K from G (hereinafter referred to as the “National Intelligence Service”). From J to K, I served as the team leader of the NIS from H team (hereinafter referred to as the “G team”). Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant C were engaged in systematic cyber activities, such as posting comments and writing out, according to the issue at which they were sent to the NIS’s upper part of the NIS. Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant C were the team leader of the “L team” who continued to engage in cyber activities in connection with the above employees of the NIS in order to ensure that the NIS’s activities were carried out in the same manner as those of the NIS’s employees during the term of office, and that the NIS continued to be engaged in such activities as one of the NIS’s main political activities, and that the NIS’s activities were carried out in connection with the presidential officer’s public relations and political activities, and that the president’s active and political activities were carried out during the term of office, based on the awareness that the president’s success in the NIS’s election and political activities were carried out.

P, Q and R’s above political intervention, election intervention, and use order. The staff of G group H team from February 14, 2009 to December 2, 2012 led by P, Q, R, planning officers, and the team leader, etc. to give instructions on the major issues and response issues through the direction system that led to the group leader from February 14, 2009 to December 2, 2012. The staff of G group sent instructions to external assistants, such as the team leader of G group H team, to maintain security, such as guidelines and budget utilization, and the countermeasures taken during the course of carrying out the NIS’s duties, and sent instructions to implement cyber activities in the same way as those of the staff of the H team of the G group, while preparing comments and comments on comments and characters based on the arguments received in connection with their external assistants, or conducting cyber activities such as upper and upper activities by using them. The staff of the G group was as follows.

G단의 외부 조력자인 U이 2012. 8. 29.경 인터넷 사이트 'V'에 닉네임 'W'로 접속하여 "X"라는 제목으로 Y 대통령이 Z시장 재직 당시 AA을 복구하고 AB 다리와 동상을 건립한 업적이 있다는 취지로 작성하여 게시한 글에 대하여 같은 날 AC 등 G단 H팀 직원 3명이 모두 4개 닉네임을 사용하여 집중적인 '추천' 클릭을 함으로써 찬성 의견을 표시하는 등 다수의 인터넷 사이트에서 특정 정당과 정치인들을 지지·찬양하거나 반대 비방하는 게시글에 대하여 찬반클릭을 함으로써 찬성 또는 반대 의견을 표시하였다. G단 H팀 직원인 AC가 2012. 11. 23. 10:41경 'V'에 닉네임 'AD'로 접속하여 TAE"라는 제목으로 "AF AG당 후보는 천안함 폭침 후 나온 5.24 대북 제재 조치까지 해 제하겠다고 한다. 국민은 어떤 후보가 우리의 안보와 국익을 수호하고 책임질 수 있는지를 눈여겨봐야..."라는 내용으로 AF AG당 제AH대 대통령선거 후보자의 대북 제재해제 공약을 비판하는 취지의 글을 작성하여 게시하는 등 다수의 인터넷 사이트에서 특정 정당 또는 정치인을 지지 · 찬양하거나 반대 · 비방하는 글 및 대선과 관련하여 특정 정당 또는 후보자를 지지하거나 반대하는 글을 작성하여 게시하였다. G단 H팀 직원인 AI이 2012. 9. 29. 13:10경 'AJ' 등 18개의 T 계정으로 "AK: 비정규직 상여금 10만원 지급 반대.은행장 16억 연봉 찬성 원조딱지. 다운계약서 논문표절. 군복무 위수지 역이탈...또 뭐가 나오려나.... AL의 진실이란 어린애들 모아놓고 야부리 깔때만 적용되 는...AL진실?" 이라는 내용으로 AL 제AH대 대선 후보 예정자를 반대하는 취지의 글을 각각 또는 동시 리트윗하는 등 대선과 관련하여 특정 정당 또는 후보자를 지지하거나 반대하는 글 및 특정 정당 또는 정치인을 지지 · 찬양하거나 반대 · 비방하는 글을 트윗 내지 리트윗하였다. P, Q, R는 위와 같이 G단 H팀 팀장, 팀원 및 'L팀' 등 외부 조력자들과 공모하여 인터넷 사이트에서의 2,125회의 글 게시, 1,214회의 찬성 내지 반대 클릭, 786,698회 의트윗 리트윗 등으로 인한 국가정보원법 위반 및 인터넷 사이트에서의 114회의 글 게시, 1,057회의 찬성 내지 반대 클릭, 446,844회의 트윗·리트윗 등으로 인한 공직선거법위반으로 기소되어, 2017. 8. 30. 서울고등법원 파기환송심 재판에서 P은 징역 4년 및 자격정지 4년, Q과 R는 징역 2년 6개월에 집행유예 4년 및 자격정지 2년 6개월을 각 선고받아 그 판결이 2018. 4. 19. 확정되었다.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act (Defendants) and violation of the Public Official Election Act (Defendant A) provided outside assistants such as the team leader of the “L Team” with remuneration for activities executed with the NIS’s budget, and ordered them to participate in the above cyber political participation and election campaign in connection with external assistants, even though they were activities irrelevant to the duties of the NIS according to the direction of P et al., which were sent from July 201 to December 2012 through the direction system as above.

I 등 H팀 직원들은 2010. 1.경부터 2012. 12.경까지 위와 같이 지휘 체계를 거쳐 하달된 P 등의 지시에 따라 국정원의 직무와는 무관한 활동임에도 국정원의 예산으로 집행되는 활동 대가를 제공할 것을 약속하면서 피고인 B, 피고인 D, 피고인 C, AM, AN, AO, AP 등 'L팀'의 팀장들에게 위와 같은 사이버 정치관여 및 선거개입 활동을 지시하였다. 피고인 B, 피고인 D, 피고인 C, AM, AN, AO, AP 등 'L팀'의 팀장들은 그 지시에 따라 다수의 팀원들과 함께 사무실, 자택 등지에서 AQ 등 인터넷 사이트에 게시글 작성 및 찬반클릭을 하거나 T를 이용한 트윗· 리트윗 활동 등 인터넷, T 등의 사이버 공간을 활용하여, 당시 대통령, 정부 및 여당 또는 여권 정치인들을 지지 · 찬양하거나 야당 또는 야권 정치인들을 반대 · 비방하는 내용으로 피고인 B은 2010. 10. 31.부터 2011. 1. 7.까지 범죄일람표(1) 기재와 같이 AQ 정치관여 글 244건을, 피고인 D은 2010. 2. 2.부터 2010. 8. 6.까지 범죄일람표(2) 기재와 같이 AQ 정치관여 글 225건을, 피고인 C는 2011. 7. 2.부터 2012. 12. 5.까지 범죄일람표(3) 기재와 같이 인터넷 포털 사이트 정치관여 글 11건을, AM는 범죄일람표(4) 기재와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제1항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(4) 중 18건은 제외] AQ 정치관여 글 130건 및 범죄일람표 (5) 기재와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제2항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(5) 중 12건은 제외] AQ 정치관여 글에 대한 찬성 내지 반대 클릭 38건을, AN은 범죄일람표(6)(7) 기제와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제3항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(7) 중 227건은 제외] T 정치관여 글 2,452건 및 범죄일람표(8) 기재와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분 제4항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(8) 중 403건은 제외] AQ 정치관여 글 1,227건을, AO 등은 범죄일람표(9)(10) 기재와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제5항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(10) 중 289건은 제외] T 정치관여 글 2,167건 및 범죄일람표 (11)(12) 기재와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제6, 7항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(11) 중 403건, 범죄일람표(12) 중 144건은 각 제외] AQ 정치관여 글 3,068건을, AP은 범죄일람표(13)(14) 기재와 같이 T 정치관여 글 35건을 각각 올리고, AR 실시된 제AH대 대통령선거 등 각종 선거와 관련하여 당시 여당 및 여권 후보자를 지지하거나 야당 및 야권 후보자를 반대하는 내용으로 AN은 범죄일람표 (7) 기재와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제3항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(7) 중 227건은 제외] T 선거운동 글 1,459건을, AO 등은 범죄일람표 (10) 기재와 같이[단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제5항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(10) 중 289건은 제외] T 선거운동 글 1,922건 및 범죄일람표 (12) 기재와 같이 [단, 별지2 '일부 철회 부분' 제7항 기재와 같이 범죄일람표(12) 중 144건은 제외] AQ 선거운동 글521건을, AP은 범죄일람표 (14) 기재와 같이 T 선거운동 글 31건을 각각 올리는 등 여론조작 활동을 수행하였다(다만, 피고인 A에 대하여는 위 피고인이 G단에서 근무하기 시작한 2011. 7.경 이후에 한한다. 아래 대가 지급 부분도 같다).

The staff of the H Team, including I, collected the results of activities from the team leader of the above "L Team", including Defendant B, Defendant D, C, N,O, and AP, from 3.5 billion won to 2.5 billion won, and reported the activities inside the NIS to 3.68 billion won in the NIS’s budget to 3.68 billion won (or 47.5 billion won to 2.5 billion won in the NIS’s budget to 2.5 billion won from 2010 to 3.2.5 billion won in the election campaign from 2.5 billion won in the NIS’s budget to 3.65 billion won in the NIS’s budget to 2.5 billion won in the process of performing the activities.

In addition, the employees of HT et al., upon receipt of the above direction system, engaged in the presidential election campaign or election campaign by using the president, government or politician at the time, or election campaign team leader at the same time, [excluding 12 cases in [Attachment 2] in the election campaign list (15], 449 items in the Internet portal, and 18 items in the list of crimes (17) and the list of crimes (17) [excluding 5-day withdrawals], and 5-day withdrawals in the list of crimes at the time of election or election campaign, and 16-day withdrawals] as described in [excluding 16-day withdrawals of part of the election campaign, 5-day withdrawals, 17] and 17-day election campaign teams at the same time, as described in the list of crimes (10-day withdrawals of part of the election campaign) and 17-day election campaign teams at the same time, and 5-day election campaign teams at the same time].

2. Written perjury (Defendant A);

On September 16, 2013, the Defendant appeared in the court of Seoul Central District Court No. 502 located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court No. 507, and took an oath as a witness of the above court’s violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act.

In fact, the Defendant, as the team leader of the GH team, was informed of the fact that, at the time of carrying out cyber activities by mobilization of team members as described in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime, 'A' and 'A' were directly transmitted to the employees of the G group, including the Defendant. In addition, outside assistants, such as the Defendant, such as the team leader and team members, used a large number of IDs in connection with the GEH team, and used them to display online site discussions and comments, various Internet public opinion polls and comments, and the production and proliferation of twep above activities using T, etc., at the time of carrying out the Internet site discussions and comments, in accordance with the guidelines such as the place where they were sent to the staff of the G group H team, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he supported and embling the President, women, or passport reporters or those who opposed or opposed to the opposition party or the opposition party at the time of the presidential election, etc., or that he was aware of the fact that he supported or opposed the political or opposing activities of the candidate.

Nevertheless, the defendant testified falsely during the witness examination that "I would not have received any question and response issues", "I would like to ask questions to "I would like to have received any question and response issues", "I would like to ask questions to "I would like to have received any question or response issues", "I would like not directly due to the existence of employees, nor would I would like to participate in the selection or decision-making of the issues", "I would like to receive oral instructions", and "I would like to have received any oral instructions", and "I would like to pay I would like to 300,000 won per month by the AT ATU TUT head to U.S., and if I would have been using such external assistants and the payment of activity expenses, I would like to have naturally increased the case of using them," and I would like to be "I would like to criticize that there was any person other than U.S. who made a false question with the testimony "I would like to be included in the above cyber activities".

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement (or some legal statement) of a witness I (Defendant A, B, and D), AV (Defendant A, B), AW, AX, AY, Z, and D (Defendant A, B, and C);

1. Defendant A (Evidence List Nos. 986, 994, 1091, hereinafter referred to as “Evidence List”) , Defendant B (the order No. 254,786, 1050, 1063), Defendant C (except the part in which the actual authenticity is denied for Defendant C), Defendant D (the order No. 828,1044), Defendant DNA (the order No. 232,769), AP (the order No. 256,766), BA (the order No. 305), AO (the order No. 351,51,739), I (the order No. 710,805, 872, 905), B25 (the order) and 870 or 970 (the suspect's protocol of suspect examination)

1. The statement statement (or part of the statement) of each prosecutor's office in relation to the defendant A (No. 454, 910), AZ (No. 749), BC (No. 768), AV (No. 780), AW (No. 782), AY (No. 1034), and AX (No. 1073)

1. (Internal Documents of National Quota) The current status of operation of each L Team (No. 2, 3), T L Team operation status (No. 4), one copy (No. 23), one copy (No. 23), one copy of the implementation status of the instructions given by the National Assembly, "Reduction of the welfare budget for the 4th course of business" (No. 13, 2010) (No. 16, Feb. 16, 2009), the report on the main business of the G Group (No. 35, Feb. 16, 2009), 18 (No. 42), one copy (No. 63), one copy (No. 64), one copy of the total number of data No. 711 (No. 64), one of the data concerning the operation of the G Team, one of the data concerning the investigation report and the submission of the data related to the investigation report (No. 78,78) and each of the accompanying documents (No. 97).78).

1. (Other) Investigation Report (P. Violation of the Public Official Election Act, etc.) (Attachment to the Decision No. 50 to 54), each accompanying document (P. 50 to 54), investigation report (related to the situation of management of the team leader of the LWD Team in exclusive charge ofT) and accompanying documents (C. 84,85), investigation report (verification of the fact that the prescribed number of the State Council was posted systematically through Q and T through BE), investigation report (S-related documents, investigation report (S-related documents, 659 through 666), BF search report (20 to 754) and accompanying documents (20, B1 to 751, B1 to 754, B1, B1 to 75, B1, B1 to 75, B1, B1 and 75, B of investigation report and accompanying documents (20, BG and 754, B1 to 765, B1, B15, and 764, each accompanying documents related to investigation report and 35, etc.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Articles 18(1), 9(2)2, and 4 of the former National Intelligence Service Act (Amended by Act No. 12266, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the participation in political activities), Articles 255(3)2 and 85(1) of the former Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (including the election campaign using the status of a public official), Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (including the above evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 18(1) and 9(2)2 of the former National Intelligence Service Act; Articles 33 and 30 of the Criminal Act (including the election campaign using the status of a public official);

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violating the National Intelligence Service Act and the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act, and punishment prescribed for a crime of violating the National Intelligence Service Act with heavier punishment)

1. Statutory mitigation;

Defendant A: Articles 153 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (i.e., perjury as a confession)

1. A separate sentence;

Defendant A: Article 18(3) and 18(1)3 of the former Public Official Election Act (the punishment against a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act and the punishment against perjury shall be imposed separately)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B, C, and D: each of the provisions of Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the following grounds for sentencing)

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. Whether it is liable for any T activities after February 2012

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant A is not responsible for the part of T activities after February 2012 among the facts charged (the foregoing argument is common assertion in the violation of the Act of the State Agency and the Public Official Election Act) since there was no instruction or report on cyber activities using T after February 2012, since the establishment of the BD Team exclusively in charge of T activities.

2) Determination

A) Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the part of the T Activities in the facts charged is a T Activities by the L Team leader under the above H Team, AO, or AP while Defendant A serves as the team leader of the BJ Team under the G Team.

B) Defendant A and witness I consistently state from the prosecution that there was no fact that the L Team leader instructed the L Team leader to engage inT activities or received a report on its performance from the prosecution to the present court. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, all of the L Team A, AP, and N T activities were conducted under the involvement of the BJ Team. Even if Defendant A did not specifically recognize the activities of an individual L Team, it appears that the fact that the activities of the relevant L Team were included in T at least during the scope of the activities of the relevant L Team. Accordingly, Defendant A is liable for the part regarding the T activities of the aforementioned L Team leader. Defendant A’s assertion is not acceptable.

① Defendant A, without Defendant A’s work instruction, instructed the team members to engage in activities or did not report to Defendant A, he/she does not have any case in which he/she independently performed his/her duties. The monthly L Team officer reported the results including specific figures, and the Defendant A directly corrected the parts. The monthly report was made by Defendant A, stating that the performance records of each L Team were attached to the L Team in EX file (No. 805, No. 17, No. 21916-21917, No. 905, No. 33402, 33408).

② On Aug. 5, 2012 and Sept. 16, 2012, AO sent e-mail files containing both A2 and T-T activities to I (No. 745, No. 16235-1639). In light of the relevant e-mail, AO was engaged in T-T activities for at least one year (L team members reported to AO on March 5, 2012), and T-T activities were included. No. 745, No. 16211, No. 1466, No. 1621), and I was reported by AO as one file. [This is not simple employee, but at least 70, No. 160, No. 1600, No. 1666, No. 1666, No. 1466, and there was no possibility that C-O’s e-mail activities were conducted by Defendant 1, etc.

③ The AP mainly engaged in AP activities, while the person in charge of the AP changed, entered articles or letters favorable to the Y government to tweet or retweet them. At the time of the occurrence of a specific issue, at the time of the occurrence of the issue, the AP intended to spread articles or letters favorable to the Y government or to recommend them. Twe begin first on January 2012, and post BI or BL news by linking BI or BL news to T, and tweet it with another account.” The AP stated that the person in charge of the AP performed T activities at the direction of the personnel in charge of the NIS (P No. 256, No. 56, No. 5035, No. 766, 15, No. 20268). The above instructions were given in sequence to P, Q, Defendant R, and Defendant R, in order.

④ From August 201, 201, in the case of NN, the person in charge of management who began T&B activities under the direction of B/B on or around August 201, and even after the person in charge of management was replaced by B/B to B/L to the employees of B/L, it appears that he/she was aware that he/she performed the activities with B because he/she had been aware that he/she had been in charge of the activities because he/she had reported the results to B/B’s address first known (including Nos. 769, 15, 2013-20415, Nos. 870, 18, 3029-30214). However, it is reasonable to view that the person in charge of management who paid B/N twice a month to N was continuously reported to the person in charge of B/N’s activities and all cyber activities that he/she had received and reported to the person in charge of B/N’s performance at the time of the first report.

⑤ The G Team consists of BM, BP, BJ, and BD teams. Among them, BM teams consisted of general planning, issues, and paper preparation and dissemination; BP teams, including BL; BP teams, and BJ teams (new establishment around July 201) mainly provided response services; BD teams (new establishment around February 201) provided response services. In this regard, Defendant A stated that “BJ teams in the process of internal investigation by the NIS,” but Defendant BJ teams did not have exclusive response teams, and Defendant BP function was reduced to one strike (BP) within the BJ team; BP team was not in charge of Party B’s activities, and Defendant Q2 stated that it was not in charge of Party B’s respective activities, including BP and PP, and that it was not in charge of Party B’s respective activities, and that it was not in charge of Party P5’s new activities, and that it was not in charge of Party P4’s respective activities in the area of PPP and PPP, and that it was not in charge of Party P5.

B. Whether to recognize the intention or illegality of election intervention

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant A did not have awareness of the opening of an election (the awareness of intention or illegality). Defendant A did not have been instructed to open an election from the upper part or reported from the H Team members and L Team team members on the preparation of the opening of an election.

2) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A had the awareness that cyber activities directed by himself/herself to the H Team members and L team teams constituted an election intervention. Defendant A’s assertion is not acceptable.

① During the period of repeated change of the political power due to the presidential appointment, P set forth that the political power for the past ten years is de facto 'the political power for the past ten years'. When unilaterally criticizes the arguments or policies of the party or the opposition party, P set forth so-called ‘pro-North Korea forces' or ‘pro-North Korea relationship', P made a statement to the effect that it should be most at various elections to be held in the future (No. 63,2, 1354-1649). P emphasized the effect of political strike depending on the results of various elections, such as presidential elections, election of National Assembly members, local government elections, etc. P took place at around that time, P took advantage of the position of the party or the candidate who is a political party belonging to him or her, and whose political power is replaced accordingly, 15,60,000 employees’ or the employees’ position were abolished or 165, and thus, 25,000,000 employees or the employees’ position of P.P.

② G단장 R는 P의 지시를 피고인 A 등 각 H팀 팀장을 통하여 직원들에게 하달하고, G단 차원에서 '0님 지시사항 이행실태'(순번 43, 제1권 600~602쪽), 'G단 활동방식 쇄신과제 이행실태'(순번 42, 제1권 582~599쪽) 등 문건을 따로 작성·관리하면서 그 이행 상황을 수시로 점검하였다. 특히 R는 2012. 6. 18. 간부회의에서 '종북좌파들의 진보정권 세우려는 시도를 저지해야 한다.'라고 말하고, 2012. 8. 24. 파트원회의에서는 'G단이 하고 있는 업무 중에 법규에 저촉되는 것은 없으니 쫄지 말고 당당하게 일하 라.'고 말하며, 2012. 11. 9. 파트원회의에서 '선거 때문에 위축되어 우리가 하는 일을 소홀히 해서는 안된다. 주어진 업무는 당당하게 하라.'고 말하고, 2012. 11. 19. 간부회의에서 '우리의 기본 임무가 종북좌파 척결과 국정홍보라는 사실을 잊어서는 안 된다.'고 말하는 등 대통령선거를 앞둔 시점에서도 그동안 해오던 정치관여 사이버 활동을 계속 적극적으로 하라고 지시하였다(순번 42, 제1권 588, 591, 593쪽).

③ Defendant A, as the team leader of the BJ Team, attended a meeting of the G group for a week and month under the G group, made a report on the duties of each team, and delivered orders from the head of the G group to the head of the SJ group and the members of the Q. As such, Defendant A sufficiently recognized the consistent direction and purport of P and R as above, and appears to have served them on the employees (as of August 25, 201, the Operational Status of the L Team (as of August 25, 201) reported to Defendant A and reported to Defendant A) was stated as follows: (i) thorough denial of objective ② assertion of personal expression, etc. (as of order 3, 1, 23, 805, 17, 1925, 21925, 905, 239, 239, 239, 39, 239, 209).

⑤ Prior to the AR presidential election, G group had been engaged in election activities. At the prosecution, there were many directions that are likely to violate the Election Act during the election period, and the staff were informed. There was a provision that orders were given to support the candidates for a female candidate or opposition activities against the candidates during the election period, and around 2010, L Team member was sentenced to a fine for violation of the Election Act. There was a case that said money was paid. At the time of BTZ market BU election, there was a timely statement that there was an order given to spopulism, anti-value registration amount, etc. (No. 303,6, No. 597, No. 805, 197, 1951). The details of the crime were found to be included in BU during the election period, “No. 10, 2000, and 40,0000,000,0000,000).”

6) Defendant A is arguing that there was no intention to participate in an election without dispute that there was no intention to participate in the election, but it is contradictory. However, cyber activities performed at all times by the team members and L team members of the BJ team and L team were those of political interventions against the President, the ruling party, the ruling party, and the opposition party and the opposition party. during the election campaign period, those cyber activities are part easily known from the perspective of ordinary people that such cyber activities constitute not only political interventions but also election interventions. Nevertheless, there is no circumstance that Defendant A used to seriously consider or endeavor to prevent cyber activities of the H team members and L team leader from being taken place.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant B did not prepare Chapter BC’s receipt 22 or receive the amount entered in each receipt (total amount of KRW 228.5 million).

B. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is determined that the receipt in the name BC was prepared by Defendant B and the amount entered in each receipt was received by Defendant B. Defendant B’s assertion is rejected.

① All of Defendant B’s personnel I, BW, and V, once every month from B1 to B1, have been prepared with B1 and one receipt in the name of Defendant B from B and B, and consistently stated that each receipt was paid to Defendant B (each statutory statement, No. 780, No. 1658, No. 782, No. 1634, No. 805, No. 17, No. 21928, No. 21930). There is no circumstance to view that the above statements were false in the name of B1 and B1, No. 2, No. 30, No. 2197, No. 21930, No. 21930, No. 2196, No. 2185, Dec. 21, 200). The two receipts and receipts were prepared in the name of Defendant B, No. 1 and the two receipts and receipts No. 32, No. 31, 201,201.

③ Defendant B’s explanation about the process of sending the curriculum vitae to I is difficult to believe. Defendant B stated in the prosecutor’s office that only 40 working female members were requested to recommend them as members of the BW Committee. However, the curriculum curriculum is written only as “BX female director-general” and it is not consistent with Defendant B’s statement that Defendant B was requested to recommend 40 working female members. The curriculum is inconsistent with the above e-mail title (the summary of the person in charge) is inconsistent with Defendant B’s statement while Defendant B was admitted as a member and was used for the member of the BX. At that time, Defendant B stated that “I was not able to engage in social activities due to economic conditions” (No. 768, No. 158, No. 2006-2368, no one could know about the person to be recommended as a member of the Committee.

3. Judgment on Defendant C’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant C received a certain amount of cash each month from the NIS personnel AX, AW, Y, etc. (hereinafter “AX, etc.”), but was unaware of whether AX, etc. was the NIS personnel. Since the National Intelligence Service’s violation of the NIS Act is an identification crime that requires the status of the NIS personnel, Defendant C, who was not an accomplice, did not know of the status of AX, etc., he/she is not liable as a co-principal.

In addition, Defendant C did not have been instructed to engage in online political activities such as posting comments, writing comments, pros and cons voting from AX, etc., and 11 of posted comments on crime sights (3) are personally posted by Defendant.

B. Relevant legal principles

In a case where a defendant denies an intentional act, which is a subjective element of a constituent element of a crime, he/she cannot objectively prove the intention itself, and therefore, he/she is bound to prove an indirect or circumstantial fact related to the intentional act due to the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact ought to be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of the fact by using a detailed observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017).

1) The main issue of the facts charged by Defendant C is whether Defendant C knew of the fact that Defendant AX et al. was a NIS employee (other arguments are considered together with the above issues). As long as Defendant C denies it, it is inevitable to determine by way of indirect facts or circumstantial facts relevant to the nature of things in accordance with the above legal doctrine.

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant C was aware of the fact that it was an employee of the NIS, and in collusion with them, Defendant C was engaged in cyber activities by political intervention, such as preparing a notice to support and publish a specific political party or politician on the Internet. Defendant C’s assertion is rejected.

① AX made a statement that she was an employee of the NIS while attending a drinking-site or meeting, etc. of a remuneration organization in order to color the team leader at the prosecutor’s office, she was introduced as a member of the NIS while she was working for him/her as a member of the NIS (No. 1073, 300, 46878). However, even when AX was introduced as a member of the NIS, it is somewhat unclear whether she was introduced as a member of the NIS, and it is unclear whether she was a member of the NIS, which is a disguised organization. However, AX made a statement to the effect that she was aware of the fact that she was a member of the NIS and she was a member of the NIS, she was not a member of the NIS, and that she was a member of the NIS, she was not a member of the NIS, and that she was a member of the NIS, she was a member of the NIS, and she was a member of the NIS, she was a member of the NIS.

② Monthly payments received by Defendant C were paid in return for the instant cyber activities.

At the prosecution, AX proposed that "AX would provide a certain amount of money in return for the pros and cons voting of various public opinion pollss related to the government information activities, such as the fourth class lecture, by creating a large number of Defendant C separately from Defendant C in 2009," and subsequently, the above Defendant C stated that "I sent a certain amount of money by e-mail after arranging the pros and cons voting performance on a daily or weekly basis in X-ray (No. 1073, 30, 4681)." On the other hand, AW, AY, who is a person in charge of the post, ordered the work by delivering the issue by telephone to the L team leader in charge of the Defendant, such as the Defendant C, and confirmed the performance by accessing D's team leader to D'. The reason was consistent with the purport that "IX W, AY's each legal statement, 1034, 294, 4584)."

The writing posted by Defendant C, such as the list of crimes attached to the crime (3) is also confirmed (No. 1024, No. 29, No. 45280).

③ Defendant C prepared a security pledge to the effect that “IX does not fare money anywhere.” In addition to the monthly cyber activities, the fact that IX, etc. was paid a large amount of money exceeding KRW 10 million directly or by cash receipt is recognized (No. 1074, 309 pages). Such payment method alone is extremely unusual, and any person who pays money is bound to have a question about the subject of payment of money. The content of AX, etc.’s instruction is that it is a notice to support government policies on the Internet, preparation of pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and con voting, and thus, the subject of direct benefit cannot present any other subject. In addition, the above cyber activities would have a high level of knowledge or technology to pay X money exceeding KRW 10,000,000,000 per month, and it is difficult for Defendant A’s prosecutor’s office to easily inform of such fact from the perspective of the general public’s status, and thus, it is difficult for Defendant CX to be replaced without any special explanation.

④ In light of the cases of other LB teams, it is reasonable to see that CX was an employee of the NIS No. 50, 201. On August 201, 201, the 5th 6th 3rd 5th 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 6th 7th 7th 7th 6th 7th 7th 6th 7th 7th 6th 7th 7th 7th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 7th 6th 7th 7th 5th 6th 7th 7th 7th 6th 6th 7th 3th 6th 3th 6th 3.

⑤ 크리스천 독지가가 자신이 운영하는 북한주민 인권운동단체에 기부하는 후원금으로 알고 받았다는 피고인 C의 주장은 전혀 신빙성이 없다. 위에서 본 것과 같이 AX 등은 "피고인 C에게 이 사건 사이버 활동을 지시하고 그 대가로 활동비를 지급한 것이다. 활동비를 '후원금'이라고 칭한 사실이 없다."는 취지로 일치하여 일관되게 진술하였다. AX 등은 피고인 C와 개인적으로 전혀 알지 못하는 사이인데, 상부에 위 피고인의 활동 여부에 관하여 허위로 보고하고 위 피고인에게는 북한주민 인권운동 관련 후원금이라고 설명하면서 돈을 지급할 아무런 이유가 없다. 피고인 C의 위 주장은 'AX에게 왜 돈을 주는지 물었더니 회원 중에 한 분이 주는 것이니 자세히 알 필요가 없다고 하였고 재차 물었더니 냉정하게 화를 냈다.', '당시 AX이 뭘 하든 상관없으니, CF 선교사의 입북 후 상황과 제가 하는 온라인 일에 대해서만 알려달라고 하였다.'는 자신의 검찰 진술(순번 1074, 제30권 46894쪽)과도 그다지 부합하지 않는다.

6) AX and Y stated to the effect that “AX and AY instructed the Defendant C to cast Q pro and pro-con voting,” and they do not know any other activities (each statutory statement, Nos. 1034, 29, 48481, No. 1073, 3681, No. 3681). However, Defendant C’s protocol attached to the internal report (No. 3, No. 1, No. 35) of the NIS stated that the above Defendant’s duties are “the development of cyber activities related to the above Defendant’s duties by using various online public opinion poll voting, No. 10, No. 1, and No. 35, No. 10781, No. 1, and No. 35).” However, the article posted by Defendant C is not only common in that it supports the Government, but also a political, diplomatic, social, etc. as part of the above cyber activities that the above Defendant prepared as part of the aforementioned cyber activities.”

4. Judgment on Defendant D’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant D received a certain amount of cash each month from the NIS staff CG, I, Z, etc. (hereinafter “CG, etc.”) as stated in the facts charged. However, the said money was received as a support for the activities of the Internet CG PP (CH) that he had been operated since then, and CG, etc. were not aware of the status of the NIS staff. Since the violation of the NISA is an identification crime that requires the status of the NIS staff member, Defendant D, without the status, was not liable as a co-principal if he did not know of the status of the co-principal.

In addition, Defendant D did not receive instructions from CG, etc. in relation to online activities for a certain period of time. Among the notices posted in the list of crimes (2) the notice posted by Defendant D is inconsistent with the posting by Defendant D. However, the notice posted by other members of the above Internet car page is irrelevant to himself. However, the judgment is based on the posting by other members of the above Internet car page.

1) The main issue of the facts charged by Defendant D is whether Defendant D knew of the fact that Defendant D was a NIS employee (other arguments are considered together with the above issues), and as long as Defendant D denies this, this part of the facts charged ought to be determined through indirect facts or circumstantial facts relevant to the nature of things in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant D knew that CG et al. was an employee of the NIS, and in collusion with them, was engaged in cyber political activities such as preparing a notice to support and publish a specific political party or politician on the Internet. Defendant D’s assertion is rejected.

① From August 201 to March 2012, I clearly stated the circumstances that Defendant D was aware of his/her status as a member of the State Council in the prosecution and this court. [At the time of transfer, Defendant D’s “at the time of transfer,” he/she is the LG team leader created under the direction of the upper part that he/she works as a member of the State Council. The above Defendant knew that he/she is a member of the State Council, so it is not necessary to disguise his/her status.” Thus, Defendant D’s only talked with Defendant D, and Defendant D’s 3Gs only worked on the part of the ordinary State Council when he/she disguiseds his/her status, and Defendant D’s testimony was made at the 10th day of the 7th day of the 5th day of the 5th day of the 1st day of the 19th day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 7th day of the 7th day of the 2011 day of the 1st day of the 7th day of the 3th day of the 20th day of the oral.

It is difficult to see that it has an essential meaning.

② CG appears to have expressed Defendant D’s name and status. On September 6, 2011, e-mail attachment files (hereinafter referred to as “1.rf”) sent by the GH team staff BB to AM, the representative of fishery business entities, as “in addition of a futures name”, the name, address, telephone number, and the sender of the e-mail (No. 85, 45, 3519 pages). AM appears to have expressed that “B sent a set of fishery products to those indicated on the above mail (No. 252, 55, 4935 pages), and BB also acknowledged that the e-mail attachment files (hereinafter referred to as “in addition of a futures name”), including Defendant D, B, and the 3G head of the e-mail team, expressed that the 20-year name and the 3G head of the e-mail team would be one of its own employees, with the exception of the 3G head of the e-mail’s identity and the 3G head of the e-government.

③ Defendant D appears to have known that Defendant D was a NIS employee of the NIS even in light of the developments leading up to the exclusion of Defendant D as the L Team leader. Defendant D’s protocol attached to Defendant D’s internal report (No. 3, 1 and 33 pages) indicated as “the time of the activity”: July 2008 (*08.7.08.12.G group). In other words, Defendant D appears to have been transferred to the G group in connection with other departments within the NIS, not the L Team leader organized for the cyber activities of the G group from the beginning, but the transfer of Defendant D to the G group during which he was engaged in the activities in connection with other departments within the NIS. This is consistent with I’s statement and degree. Defendant D, as a member of the CL University, should also be granted an election campaign advisory committee, such as the YNN, and the Vice-Chairperson of the CMF Policy Committee.

(S) Now 822, 17, 22245, 104, 29, 4577). In light of these circumstances, Defendant D appears to have been introduced to receive monetary support in connection with the NIS at the level of public administration based on the routing and routing.

④ The reason seems to be that Defendant D’s failure to perform cyber activities in good faith seems to be due to the fact that the subject of the instructions was the State Council. The first and the AZ consistently stated that “Defendant D was significantly unfaithful and did not have been improved to pressure.” Defendant D did not have any special occupation or means of livelihood at the time, but the activity expenses paid by CG, etc. were a considerable amount of money. In general, if the general public in such a situation were to have been engaged in activities in line with the required level to prevent the suspension of the payment of activity expenses. However, even if Defendant D was under pressure several times, the failure to improve the performance of activities cannot be deemed to have been easily suspended from the payment of activity expenses even if he/she was in bad faith. This is the reason that he/she thought that the cyber activity instruction and the payment of activity expenses would not have been known.

⑤ The method of paying receipts directly and in cash, which calls for a large amount of five million won per month. The method of paying receipts itself is extremely unusual, and any person is bound to have a question about the person paying the said money. The content of CG, etc.’s instructions is harming cyber activities, such as the preparation of a notice to support government policies on the Internet, and voting for supporting the government policies. As such, the subject who directly profits from such cyber activities is either the government or a party, nor the other party is able to present. The foregoing cyber activities do not require high knowledge or technology as much as the said cyber activities are to pay a large amount of more than five million won per month in return. It is an example that the person in charge does not clearly state his/her status, and multiple changes are made without any special explanation. If compared to this situation, from the perspective of the general public, it is difficult to readily conclude that the information institution, such as the State Council, is related to the original state.

6) The monthly money received by Defendant D is the money paid for cyber activities. At the 1st 3rd x 1st x 1st x x 1st x x 1st x x 1st x x 1st x x 3th x x 1st x x 1st x x 1st x x 1st x x 1st x x 3th x lst x 1st x x 1st x 3th x x 1st x lst x 1st x lst x 3th x lst x lst x 1st x mb lst x 1st x lst x lst x mb lst mb lst mb lst mb lst mb lst lst x 1st x.

7) Monthly payments received are the donations for one’s own Internet Caf (CH) activities, and there was no involvement of the other party in online activities except for a certain period of time. Defendant D’s assertion is inconsistent with I and AZ’s consistent statement. According to Defendant D’s statement, the above Internet Caf was operated by the above Defendant, and most of the members participated in the CL ex post facto election campaign period (No. 828,17, 22364). The above Internet Caf appears to have not engaged in special external activities (No. 754, 154, 1648, 16415). The payment of a large amount of KRW 5 million per month without any requirement under such Internet Caf, regardless of who is the subject of payment. Defendant D’s assertion cannot be said to have presented objective evidence from the prosecutor’s office to the point of view of denial of the physical conditions and, even if it appears to have presented such objective evidence, it is difficult to provide the new opportunity for Defendant D to testify.

8) The notice of "CI" in the notice of the crime log (2) seems to have been posted by himself, but it is difficult to believe that other members of the above Internet Carbook were posted. Defendant D also stated in the first prosecutor's office that the first prosecutor's office stated that one copy of the printed material (BID, and one copy of PW) in which the ID, password, etc., discovered in the residence were posted (BID, No. 17th 2383). However, in the second prosecutor's office's investigation, the first half of the investigation was made by the prosecutor, and that the first half of the investigation was made by family members, and the person who presented the printed material in the above list was written by the member list for the purpose of voting the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the contents of the voting.

He/she immediately reversed his/her statement by stating that he/she has either written a notice or written instructions to Kafin members (No later than 104, Nos. 29, 45875, 45884-4889). In addition, this court asserts that he/she was written only by CI’s writing in this court. As such, it is difficult to believe that Defendant D’s statement has changed from time to time without reasonable grounds or reasonable explanations.

The accounts mentioned above in the printed or file can only be seen as the accounts controlled and managed by Defendant D, irrespective of the form or content of the entry. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the notice posted on the list of crimes (2) was posted by Defendant D or its team members.

① From April 2012 to December 2012, 201, the AZ in charge of Defendant D stated that “AZ introduced the Defendant D as a cyber expert who received support from the U.S. organization.” However, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant D was still aware of the activities associated with the NIS, as long as there was no change in the content of the activities, the amount of the activities, and the method of payment, etc., even if the Defendant D knew that it was an employee of the NIS for a long time.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

A. Defendant A

1) A violation of the National Intelligence Service Act or a violation of the Public Official Election Act: Imprisonment for not more than five years and suspension of qualifications for not more than five years;

(ii) Perjury: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years and six months;

(b) Defendants B, C, and D: Imprisonment for not more than five years and suspension of qualifications for not more than five years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

1) With respect to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the violation of the Public Official Election Act, the sentencing guidelines are not set, and the violation of the Public Official Election Act does not apply to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act.

2) Crimes of perjury

[Determination of Punishment] Perjury No. 1 (Perjury)

[Special Contributor] ○ Aggravation (person who has committed an act): Where perjury has an effect on the result of a new illness or trial.

○ Measures to mitigate (person who has committed an act): A self-denunciation, confession

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, Imprisonment with labor for not less than 10 months but not more than 3 years

B. The sentencing criteria are not applied to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act by Defendant B, C, and D, since the sentencing criteria are not set.

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A: (a) one year of imprisonment with prison labor and suspension of qualifications for committing a crime of violating the National Intelligence Service and the Public Official Election Act; (b) six months of imprisonment with prison labor for perjury guarantees the political neutrality of public officials as constitutional values; and (c) accordingly, public officials are subject to political neutrality obligations under the State Public Officials Act, such as the State Public Officials Act. In particular, even though the NIS exercises its authority to collect various security information at home and abroad, its organization, budget and duties are not open to the public, there are many cases where the NIS’s duties and duties are not open to the public; (d) it is easy for the NIS to take advantage of the presidential authority to maintain its political authority and re-production; and (e) it is difficult for the NIS to take advantage of its political position and duties to prevent any serious harm to democracy; (e) it is necessary for the NIS to take advantage of its political authority and duties to ensure that the NIS’s duties and duties are not carried out by the NIS to the extent that public officials are not carried out by the NIS, but by taking advantage of its political position and political position.

The team employees in receipt of the Defendant A’s instructions conducted the instant crime by hiding their status as a general person, or exposing the general L Team leader and L Team members, and ordering their activities in the hinterland. The method of such crime is highly likely to cause harm to the formation of public opinion in democracy and our society in that it significantly enhances the risk of distortion of public opinion. In a final trial on P, etc., the government officer, including the NIS, was aware of a large impact on the people who trusted in political neutrality and election campaign of the State. However, in the instant trial process, the impact was further deepened by additional confirmation of the fact that a large number of general public members were mobilized as a L Team and widely performed cyber activities. Defendant A’s crime committed the instant crime, which would have been used to ensure the national security and security, and to distort the public opinion and attack the democratic system.

The performance of the duties within the NIS is for the efficient performance of the duties of the public official performing the national security duties, and the illegal instruction by the superior of the NIS cannot be considered to be in front of the benefit of the people. Defendant A may some of the circumstances where it was difficult for the NIS to refuse the upper part regarding the instant crime, but it is not impossible to expect the refusal of the illegal instruction, and such circumstances may be excessively taken into account. On the other hand, there is a result that the systematic illegal act within the NIS, such as the instant case, would result in the recurrence of the internal illegal act.

Considering the seriousness and seriousness of the instant crime, the general preventive function of punishment should not be considered in order to prevent the State agency from repeating the imprudent history of involvement in organized illegal activities.

After committing the instant crime, Defendant A took part in the act of systematically hiding the status of cyber activities of the NIS, prepared false statements in advance, and issued perjury in P et al. In that regard, the nature of the crime is not good in that the considerable period of time is required to discover the truth in the trial process, and the responsibility is not somewhat weak.

However, Defendant A was involved in the instant crime in the course of performing duties according to the direction of the upper part, and the said Defendant appears to have not been aware of having obtained personal benefits, such as promotion to the instant crime. Defendant A recognizes his mistake as a substitute and reflects it. Such circumstances are to take into account some of the circumstances favorable to the said Defendant.

In addition, the above defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and all factors of sentencing, such as circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered in comprehensive consideration.

B. Defendant B, C, and D: Each 10-month period of suspension of execution, and each 10-month period of qualification suspension, Defendant B, C, and D organized L Team as the L Team leader in connection with the NIS, and continuously prepare online bulletin boards for several years following issues and arguments from the NIS, and have received KRW 00 million from the NIS as a result of the organized and organized activities of political intervention and election intervention. In response, the above Defendants were fully aware that their actions are not adversely affecting society. Nevertheless, Defendant C and D were sufficiently aware that their actions would not be adversely affected by society. These circumstances are disadvantageous to the above Defendants.

Defendant B, C, and D do not have the status as a member of the NIS. Defendant B recognizes his mistake as a substitute and reflects it. Defendant C does not have a lot of comments on indictments. These circumstances are favorable to the above Defendants.

Other factors of sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered in comprehensive consideration of all the factors of sentencing, such as the circumstances after the crime.

The presiding judge, the highest judge;

Judges Gin-type money

Judges Shin Jae-ho

1) Defendant B consented to the copy of the receipt in the name of BC and submitted in writing the evidence against the above Defendant.

was made.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.