2020No2858 Violation of the Act on the Protection of Citizens and the Prevention of Terrorism against Public Safety, the public, etc.

Financing for the purpose of intimidation and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

violation of the Prohibition of Act, Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

Violation of the Act, etc.

A

Both parties

Location exchange (prosecution and public trial)

Attorney Park Jong-soo (Korean)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2020 Godan4010 Decided September 9, 2020

November 26, 2020

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

21,865,490 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) misunderstanding of facts;

The Defendant provided funds at a religious level not for the purpose of terrorist funds, such as the purchase of murders, but for the use of the funds, but for the slocks that need support from a war. Therefore, the Defendant was unaware of whether the funds were used for terrorist funds, and there was no intention to support terrorist organizations, and there was no intention to disguise the fact that he/she provided funds to terrorist organizations or acquired and disposed of criminal proceeds.

00 No. 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of [Attachment 1] No. 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of [Attachment 1] decision of the court below is that 'N purchased goods if 'U' has determined the use of terrorist funds (obane, automatic carbon gun, carbon bomb

The defendant did not know that ‘U' was designated for any purpose, and only delivered money that ‘U' sent to the account to 'N' through the refundr of money to 'N'. As such, the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime against this part.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

With regard to the sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment, etc.), the defendant asserts that the punishment is too unaffortable, and the prosecutor asserts that the punishment is too unaffortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

The defendant also argued the same in the court below, and the court below determined as stated in its reasoning that the defendant provided, transported and stored funds for the purpose of supporting the defendant at least with the knowledge that "B" is a terrorist organization, and that the defendant sufficiently recognized that there is a co-principal relationship with "U", "N" and "N" with regard to the crime in question.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly examined by the court below, the above judgment below is just and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing

○ favorable circumstances: Recognizing the instant crime as a substitute, it is against the investigation, and seems to have significantly cooperated with the investigation. There seems to have been some thought that the Defendant was able to contribute a religious donation and assist the elderly and the elderly. There is no criminal history in the Republic of Korea. There seems to be no parents with children under the age to support.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The instant crime is an organization in which the Defendant, who seeks to commit and implements a crime which seriously undermines human dignity, such as suicide and bomb terrorism, has provided funds, or has collected, transported, and stored funds for the purpose of benefitting them at the same time in many countries, and is not very good. As such, the act of raising, opposing, and storing funds from terrorist organizations is an essential act for the existence of terrorist organizations, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is also high. The amount of the Defendant’s act of raising, transporting, and storing funds from terrorist organizations exceeds 20 million won in total.

Considering the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair. Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion is reasonable, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading (On the other hand, as long as the defendant's appeal is without merit, but the judgment of the court below is reversed

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence acknowledged by this court is the same as the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 17(2) of the Act on Anti-Terrorism for the Protection of Citizens and Public Security (the point of providing support for a terrorist organization), Articles 6(1)1 and 5-2(1) of the Act on Prohibition against the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the point of providing funds), Articles 6(1)1 and 5-2(2) of the Act on Prohibition against the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the point of receiving funds), Article 6(1)1 of the Act on Prohibition against the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the point of acquiring funds), Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (the point of acquiring funds)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (21,865,490 won = 12,043,890 won + 9,821,600 won) Reasons for sentencing

The above circumstances were considered in light of the above reasons for reversal.

The presiding judge, judge and beneficiary of the case

Judge Cho Neng

Judges Kim Jae-young