A. The meaning of "escape" under Article 6 (1) of the National Security Act

B. Whether the court of final appeal against the judgment below after remand is bound by the grounds for reversal of the judgment remanded (affirmative)

A. The crime of escape under Article 6 of the National Security Act is established not only in the case of escape from the area in which the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea is actually exercised to the area under the control of an anti-government organization, but also in the case of escape from the area under the control of an anti-government organization as long as the Republic of Korea is a national or a third country, or residing in

B. In a case where a second appeal is filed against a judgment of the court of final appeal, which is bound by the factual and legal judgment of the court of final appeal as the grounds for reversal in the treatment of the relevant case, the court of final appeal which has tried the relevant case shall be bound by the judgment of the court of final appeal as the grounds for reversal and shall not change it.

Article 6 of the National Security Act, Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Jeong Dong-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 82No2213 delivered on December 17, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

(A) We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel together.

In light of the records, it is hard to find out that the court below's interrogation protocol of the defendant, prepared by a judicial police officer who asserts that the theory of lawsuit is inadmissible as evidence, is not admissible as evidence for admission of the crime of this case, and there is no ground to view that the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office is not made voluntarily in a reliable state by adviser, etc. In addition, since the record clearly shows that the defendant recognized the authenticity of the authenticity and the decentralization of his statement in the first trial court, it is admissible as evidence. In full view of the above statement and other evidences cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court of first instance, it cannot be said that there is an error of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence in the lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence in the lawsuit, and the crime of escape under Article 6 of the National Security Act is established not only in the case of escape from the area where the sovereign power of the Republic of Korea is exercised directly to an area under the control of anti-government organization, but also in the case of escape.

(B) Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) The court below's decision that the defendant was aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had not been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact.

(2) However, the court to which the appeal was reversed and remanded is bound by a factual and legal judgment based on the grounds for reversal of the court of final appeal (see Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act). According to the records, the original judgment against which the theory of lawsuit is criticized is based on the judgment expressed in the grounds for reversal while reversed and remanded the previous appeal judgment, and the original judgment bound by the grounds for reversal cannot be said to have been justifiable measures by the court below. In addition, in a case where a new appeal was filed against the judgment rendered in accordance with the legal and de facto judgment based on the reasoning for reversal of the court of final appeal, the court of final appeal to which the appeal was tried by the court of final appeal to which the case of final appeal was tried shall not be bound by the above judgment based on the aforementioned reasons for reversal, and it shall not be changed. If it can be changed, the procedure of dance would be repeated, and the case would be unlikely to be considered as the final resolution at any time.

Therefore, the judgment of the above party members cannot be deemed unlawful even if the opinion of the above party members was objectively erroneous as to the judgment based on the legal and de facto judgment as the grounds for reversal of party members as seen earlier after the remand of this case. Thus, we cannot accept the argument that there was an error in the law and de facto judgment based on the grounds for reversal of the judgment of reversal and remanded, and that there was an error in the theory of the lawsuit of the original judgment.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young