(a) Degree of one-way reinforced evidence;

B. Whether it constitutes a crime of diving under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act even if a country which was not under the control of an anti-government organization constitutes a crime of diving under the same Article

(c) Detection and collection of well-known facts in the Republic of Korea and the nature of espionage;

(a)Evidence of confessions is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confessions of the accused are not processed, but true, even though it is not relevant to all the facts constituting the crime, and such evidence is sufficient as well as indirect or circumstantial evidence;

B. Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act and Article 6 (4) of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 1412, Oct. 8, 1963) do not stipulate that the crime of locked from an area under the control of an anti-government organization is a requisite under the text of the provision, and thus, even if a country is not under the control of an anti-government organization, if the country was under the control of an anti-government organization and was under the control of an anti-government organization, if the country was under the control of an anti-government organization and was under the order of order or under the order of accomplishment

(c) State secrets subject to the crime of espionage under Article 4(1)2 of the National Security Act and Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act are not limited to state secrets, but to state secrets that are not informed or not confirmed to North Korean bullying groups in accordance with the national defense policy of the Republic of Korea through various fields such as politics, economy, society, culture, etc., and even if these secrets are known in the Republic of Korea, if they are favorable materials to North Korean bullying groups, detection and collection activities constitute espionage.

A. Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 6(2) of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 1412, Oct. 8, 1963); Article 6(4) of the National Security Act; Article 98(1) of the Criminal Act under Article 4(1)2 of the National Security Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do2436 delivered on November 8, 1983, 86Do215 delivered on March 25, 1986 B. Supreme Court Decision 84Do1796 delivered on October 10, 1984. Supreme Court Decision 85Do1876 delivered on November 26, 1985

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yellow-in-Law

Seoul High Court Decision 86No70 decided March 25, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

From among the days of detention pending trial after appeal, 65 days shall be included in imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of between 7 and 17 days at the time of original appeal.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

(1) In light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court of first instance, which was affirmed by the court below, is acceptable. Among the trial evidence of first instance, each protocol of examination of the defendant by the prosecutor against the defendant among the trial evidences of the court of first instance, which was applied mutatis mutandis by the court below, is prepared in the situation where the prosecutor's mental state that has no voluntariness due to the improper prolongedization, etc. of adviser in the police and physical detention, and there is no evidence to prove that there

In addition, the supporting evidence for a confession is sufficient if the facts of confession of the defendant are not processed, but can be recognized as true, even if it is not related to the whole facts of the crime, and such evidence is sufficient, not only direct evidence, but also indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2436, Nov. 8, 1983). Thus, various evidence at the time of the first instance court that the court below applied mutatis mutandis by the court below can be the supporting evidence for the confession of the defendant. Therefore, the court below's decision that the confession of the defendant in the prosecutor's office is voluntary confession and the facts of confession are true based on other evidence is just and there is no error of law against the rules of evidence in violation of the court below.

(2) It is clear that the crime of diving under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act and Article 6 (4) of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 1412, Oct. 8, 1963) which was repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act does not constitute the crime of diving under Article 6 (4) of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 1412, Oct. 8, 1963). In the same purport, even in a case where a person was diving from Japan not under the control of an anti-government organization, if he was ordered by a member of an anti-government organization and was set out under the intention of accomplishment of its purpose, it constitutes the crime of diving under Article 6 (2) of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1796, Oct. 10, 1984). The judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as it points out this.

(3) State secrets subject to the crime of espionage under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act are not limited to state secrets, but to state secrets which are the objects of the crime of espionage under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act and Article 98 (1) of the Criminal Act. It includes all state secrets which are the interest of the Republic of Korea that are not informed or not confirmed to the North Korean bullying in accordance with the national defense policy through various fields of politics, economy, society, culture, etc., and even if such secrets are known in Korea, if they are favorable to the North Korean bullying group, the act of detecting and collecting them must constitute a espionage (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do1876, Nov. 26, 1985). In the same purport, the court below's decision that

(4) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that part of the days of detention after the appeal is to be included in imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Articles 7 through 17.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)