beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against Defendant A, C, and D among them shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant C) Defendant C is the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter “National Quota”).
(AX, AW, AY, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “AX, etc.”) as an employee;
(2) The lower court’s sentence (i) imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and suspension of qualifications for 1 year / 6 months, (ii) imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years, suspension of qualifications for 2 years, suspension of qualifications for 1 year, suspension of qualifications for 1 year, suspension of qualifications for 1 year), and suspension of qualifications for 1 year for 10 years, (iii) imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, suspension of execution for 10 years, suspension of qualifications for 3 years: Defendant D: 10 months, suspension of qualifications for 10 years, suspension of qualifications for 2 years, suspension of qualifications for 10 years, suspension of qualifications for 11 years for 2 years, suspension of qualifications for 10 years for 3
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that Defendant C was aware of the fact that Defendant C had been engaged in cyber activities, such as making a notice to support and publish a specific political party or politician on the Internet, in collusion with it. ① AX stated in the prosecutor’s office that “IX was a staff member of the NIS while she participated in the drinking s or meetings, etc. of the remuneration organization to display the L team leader at the L team leader, she introduced her as a staff member of the NIS while she was working for the Defendant C” (No. 1073, No. 30, No. 46878). However, AX stated in the lower prosecutor’s office that “IX was only a staff member of the NIS, and it is not clear whether she was a staff member of the NIS, even if the introduction was made as a staff member of the NIS research institute, which is a disguised organization.”