A. Probative value of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor

B. Probative value of the statement of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor after the prosecution

A. The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement in the prosecutor's office was made in a particularly reliable state because the defendant who was the suspect has affixed his signature and seal in the court room and thus the authenticity is acknowledged.

B. The prosecutor’s statement of the defendant (which concerns the facts charged) cannot be said to be inadmissible just because it was made after the prosecution.

(b)Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Do2570 Delivered on December 23, 1980

Defendant 1 and two others

Attorney Yu Han-chul, Hongsung, and Dom (Korean)

Seoul High Court Decision 81No3376 delivered on February 20, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence by 30 days.

1. In determining the grounds of appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsels, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants and their defense counsels first share to each Defendant for convenience.

(a) With respect to the existence and reflectability of the Democratic Gu Council of Students:

The judgment of the court below is justified in the above judgment of the court below, and it concluded that the organization is an anti-government organization provided for in Article 1 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 1151) and Article 2 of the Anti-Public Law (Act No. 1997). According to the records, the above organizations are able to agree that they are organizations engaged in activities in accordance with the course of North Korea's Kim Il-sung's Kim Il-sung's Kim Il-sung's Kim Jong-sung's Kim Jong-sung's Kim Jong-sung's Kim(U.S.) and that they are anti-government organizations provided for in Article 1 of the former National Security Act (Act No. 1151) and Article 2 of the Anti-Public Law (Act No. 1997). According to the records, the above organizations can not be admitted as organizations whose purpose is to change the Republic of Korea.

B. As to the interrogation protocol or statement prepared by the prosecutor

The protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement in the prosecutor's office was made under the reliable circumstances because the defendant who was the suspect was signed and sealed in the trial court and recognized the authenticity of the statement. (See Supreme Court Decision 80Do2570, Dec. 23, 1980) According to the records, the protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the statement in the prosecutor's office was made under the reliable circumstances because the statement in the prosecutor's office was not made arbitrarily. (See Supreme Court Decision 80Do2570, Dec. 23, 1980).

C. Regarding the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence

According to the evidence produced by the judgment of the court below, each of the facts alleged in the judgment against the defendants is legally recognized and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. As to Defendant 1 and 2’s unfair sentencing, it is clear by Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act that the judgment of the court below that sentenced seven years of imprisonment and seven years of suspension of qualification against the Defendants may not be considered as the grounds for appeal on the grounds of an excessive sentencing. Thus, the arguments are not legitimate grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)