Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law: Requirements for Establishing Failure to Notify

A. The external facts alone, even though the fact that the consular leader, who carried goods at the office of the senior officers, viewed the motion picture praised by the consular leader, does not constitute a meeting with a member of the anti-state organization or a foreign organization, or with a person who was ordered to do so, even though he/she knew that he/she would have a benefit in the anti-state organization or foreign industrial relations.

B. It cannot be said that the provision of convenience under Article 7 of the Anti-Corruption Act is a provision of general vessel entry and departure, on the ground that a member of an anti-government organization or a person who was subject to its order did not explain special methods, etc. to enable entry and departure by deceiving the view of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

(c) In order to establish the crime of non-disclosure provided for in Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law, it is required that the principal offender has committed an offense provided for in Article 7 of the same Act within the scope of the area in which the Republic of Korea has the power to receive reports, or recognized that he/she committed the same offense outside Korea and entered Korea.

Article 8 of the Antipublic Law, Article 3 of the Antipublic Law

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1330 Delivered on December 13, 1966

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 66No988 delivered on May 17, 1967, Busan District Court Decision 66No988 delivered on May 17, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's ground of appeal is examined.

In order to establish a crime of non-disclosure stipulated in Article 8 of the Anti-Public Law, since this crime committed an offense under Articles 3 through 7 of the same Act in an area where the investigative authority of our country extends to the investigation authority, or it requires that the same crime should be committed outside our country and recognized within our country (see Supreme Court Decision 66Do133, Dec. 13, 196). Thus, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that three members of the non-indicted 8 of the non-indicted 8's house in Japanese government (hereinafter referred to as "non-indicted 8's house") did not know that the non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted unconstitutional meeting should not be viewed as an entry or departure.

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

Supreme Court Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-won Mab-Ba