In the act of benefiting the anti-state organizations prescribed in Article 4 (1) of the former Anti-Public Law (Law No. 643) (negative)

In cases of acts of praiseing, encouraging, or aiding and abetting the activities of anti-government organizations prescribed in Article 4(1) of the former Anti-Corruption Act (Act No. 643), it is sufficient to understand that the act is an act of praiseing the anti-government organizations.

Article 4(1) of the Antipublic Law (Abolition)

Supreme Court Decision 72Do99 Decided June 27, 1972

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 82No2473 delivered on November 20, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The period of detention pending trial after the appeal shall be 75 days included in the principal sentence.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Lee Ho-chul.

With respect to Section 1:

The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement was not made voluntarily or it was made under a reliable condition, in case the defendant who was the suspect when signing and sealing the protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admitted to the authenticity of the protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor in the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence to suspect that the above statement is not voluntary or it is not reliable. According to the evidence cited by the court below, the admissibility of the protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is recognized as legitimate, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence in the theory of lawsuit.

With respect to the second ground:

In light of the records, the case where the defendant was suspended from indictment on November 23, 1979 is the case where the defendant committed a demonstration in violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree over 10.162 times in that year, and the facts of the crime of this case, which the court below found guilty, are not the same as those of the facts of the crime of this case, and thus, it cannot be said that the court below violated the principle of res

With respect to the third point:

Unless there exist any special reasons, it is reasonable to view that the defendant had the awareness that the so-called act of anti-government organization, etc. under Article 4 (1) of the former anti-government organization (Act No. 643) was an act of pro-government organization, and that the act of pro-government organization is an act of pro-government organization, not an act of pro-government organization, and that the act of pro-government organization is an act of pro-government organization, but an act of pro-government organization is an act of pro-government organization. However, even though the book used as the teaching material for pro-government learning is not an infinite book, it is sufficient to view that the defendant had the awareness that the above speech or debate was an act of pro-government organization, encouraging, or aiding and abetting it. Therefore, the court below's decision that the above act was just and without merit in the action of Article 4 (1) of the former anti-government organization.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

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