(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.9. 선고 2018고합194 판결

A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three months and one year of suspension of qualifications for a crime listed in the judgment of the defendant, and imprisonment with prison labor for five months for a crime listed in the judgment.

Reasons

Criminal history) / [Basic Facts]

The defendant has served from B to C at the E team of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter referred to as the "National Intelligence Service") D.

G. From 10 G to H, J served as an institution assisting and supporting the President in the smooth performance of the State affairs, based on the perception that successful performance of the State affairs by the President is immediately national security, and at the meeting of K and E head, etc., ① the Government’s position on major issues of the State affairs is advocated, and the opposition is actively against the President’s achievements, performance, etc. by actively responding to the direction of the government, and ② the government policy or the government’s non-cooperative organization’s influence on the implementation of the government affairs are the same as those of the 2nd election campaign team, and the direction and direction of the 2nd election campaign team to the 2nd election campaign team to the 2nd election campaign team, and the direction and direction of the 2nd election campaign team to the 2nd election campaign team to the 2nd election campaign team, and the 2nd election campaign team to the 3rd election campaign team’s direction and direction to the 3rd election campaign team.

On November 23, 2012, Q. 10:41. 10:41, the 6th 2nd 2nd Professor Q. 2, an employee of the E-group, had access to the Internet site 'TS' and released 5.24th Do-UV candidate'. The 1st 6th Do-2nd 5th Do-2nd Gam Gam 2nd Gam 3rd Gam 1st Gam 1st Gam 2nd Gam 1st Gam 2nd Gam 1st Gam 2nd Gam 1st Gam 2nd Gam 1st Gam 1st Gam 1st Gam 2nd Gam Gam 1st Gam Gam 1st Gam Gam 201st Gam Gam 13th Gam Gam 2012.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act;

The Defendant, in collusion with AB on July 2010 to December 2012, at the same time, up to 10, up to 2010, up to 200, up to 136 items in [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 2], and [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 2], and [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 2], and [Attachment 3] and [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 1], and [Attachment 2] and [3] and [3] were excluded from election campaign-related political-related activities of the above Internet site.

2. A perjury and a perjury;

A. On December 11, 2012, in accordance with the formation process and purposeJ’s order, the EF Team staff member AF team member who was engaged in cyber activities under the direction of the EE filed a complaint with the National Assembly member, etc. who was reported to the Election Commission, etc. on the following day: (a) the EF team member of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Office, a residential area, suspected of involvement in the World Election on December 11, 2012; (b) the Seoul Suwon Police Station reported the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act; and (c) the Seoul Western Police Station filed a complaint with the EF head (L) on the suspicion of the violation of the Act; and (d) on April 18, 2013; (c) the AF, AB, Q, and L; (d) the AE Director-General of the AE Office was called the AE Director-General’s direction to respond to the case; and (d) the AE Director-General was called the AE Director-General.

After that, around October 14, 2013, AE appears to have expanded investigation by including additional cyber activities such as illegal participation of the E group employees using P, etc. AE, and the judgment of conviction of the first instance court was rendered, and it is anticipated that the NIS participated in the election systematically and has a serious trouble in performing its duties. In order to actively respond to the above case, in order to actively cope with the above case, such as preventing the maintenance of prosecutions by the prosecution and supporting the counsel by the J et al., the organization of AU comprised of the AU working-level staff. AT reported "AU-related organization and operation plan related to AU-related issues (N-related)" to AE after obtaining the approval of the Director of the NIS, the head of the AE government office and the attorney-at-law belonging to AVU-law belonging to the AE team, the AU-related team and the AU-related attorney-at-law belonging to the AE team were organized, the AU-law belonging to the AU-related team, the AU-related team.

(b) AE instructions and reporting systems;

In response to the search and seizure of the NIS, the members of the EE take measures to ensure that the cyber activities of the E group, such as illegal political interventions, or illegal activities of the E group, are not revealed, while responding to the investigation of the prosecution, such as search and seizure of the NIS, and that the E group's cyber activities are not revealed. ② In preparation for the prosecution investigation and trial following the future, the E group's cyber activities are legitimate activities before North Korea, and the E group's political interventions and election campaign posts prepared by the E group's employees are not organizational activities at the level of the NIS level but only activities of personal deviations. After the E group's decision to respond to the investigation and trial, the E group's team leader, BE, and BF instruct the relevant employees such as the E, E group's team leader, to conduct criminal investigation and trial response activities, and

On the other hand, AU members, including T and the defendant, engaged in investigation and trial response activities in accordance with the AE's response response mechanism, and the facts were disseminated through the AE's internal network by e-mail, and various external researchers or 0 teams necessary for the E-group cyber activities were used, and considerable number of activities are involved in domestic politics and have an effect on the election among the content of the E-group cyber activities and the actual implementation result. However, it was distorted to the staff of the NIS who participate in the prosecution investigation and trial through prior education as they were mainly verbally disseminated, and ② the existence of external investigators or 0 teams was absolutely distorted, ③ there was only a legitimate security activity, and ③ there was no notice on the political intervention or election intervention-related issues, and there was no employee, and there was no intention to do so so so so so so so that they can conform to the aforementioned Article.

In fact, the defendant, as a team member of the team of the team, issued daily issues and arguments to E-group employees, including himself/herself at the time of the cyber activities, despite the fact that he/she had been notified of daily issues and arguments as the internal electronic mail of the NIS, he/she shall point out the details stated in AF and Q when he/she was investigated by the prosecutor's office while holding an interview with the defendant before the legal testimony of the AE members, AF, and Q, and give testimony so that he/she does not consider that he/she had been systematically engaged in the activities. As above, the defendant was willing to give false testimony in order to conceal the fact that the E-group employees had systematically developed cyber activities according to the issues and arguments delivered to the internal electronic mail day.

On September 30, 2013, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath at the Seoul Central District Court No. 502, the Seoul Central District Court No. 502, which is located at the Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court at the Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court, as a witness for the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act (J, etc.) and for the witness for the violation of the Public Official Election Act. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant asked the Prosecutor to answer the question as follows: “I will receive from anyone who is the issue and question at any place, and I will respond to the question as “I will,” and “I will reply to the question as follows: “I will receive from anyone who is the issue and question, and if you will not receive the document stating the issue and question on the witness memory.”

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

D. According to the response period of AE established to the effect that cyber activities of E E employee BH are activities before the legitimate examination of North Korea, and political interventions and election intervention notices prepared by E employees are not activities at the level of the State Council, but activities of personal deviations, and that the overall investigation and trial process require balance among the employees' statements, the Defendant ordered the E group employees who conspired with AE members and AT and BI team BF to give false testimony according to the aforementioned response period.

Accordingly, on October 7, 2013, the Defendant came to know of the fact that the staff BH, who worked as a member of the E team BJ (EF team) at the National Intelligence Service located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul on October 1, 2013, should be present as a witness for the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant instructed BH to the effect that he did not receive issues and arguments in writing, and that he did not have gathered pro-con activities in advance, and that he did not share information with other employees and IDs, etc., the Defendant “shall do so for the organization.”

BH received issues and arguments every day through the internal electronic mail of the NIS at the time of the development of cyber activities as an employee of the E group, and recommended or opposed to a political-related writing in advance after gathering pro and pro and pro and pro-con activities. Although other employees and IDs are memoryd with co-ownership of co-ownership of facts, they were willing to give false testimony in accordance with the above order. On October 7, 2013, at the court of Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court No. 502, Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court No. 502, Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court, 157, after attending and taking an oath as a witness for the violation of the NISA and the Public Official Election Act, the completion of the examination was not delivered in writing.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with AE members, AT, and BF in order to compel BH to commit perjury.

E. Pursuant to Article 16 of the AE, such as Paragraph D above, the Defendant, in collusion with the members of the AE members, the AU team leader AT, BI team leader BF, etc., ordered the E group employees who were given testimony to give false testimony according to the above corresponding Article.

Accordingly, on November 201, 2013, the Defendant, along with BF, instructed BK to testify as a witness for the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act of J, etc. on November 4, 2013, when the staff BK, who was working as the staff member of the E team BJ T in Seocho-gu Seoul, was aware of the fact that BK should be present as a witness of the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act of J, etc. and the Public Official Election Act.

Therefore, although the facts of BK, as a staff member of the E group, memoryed the fact that he/she received issues and arguments every day as the internal electronic mail day of the NIS at the time of the development of cyber activities, he/she had the intent to make a false testimony according to the above instructions. On November 4, 2013, at the court of Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court No. 502, located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court, 157, present himself/herself as a witness of the violation of the NISA and the Public Official Election Act, he/she presented a false statement contrary to his/her memory by verbally delivering issues and arguments during the examination process and making a false statement as if he/she

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with AE members, AT, BF, etc. in order to assist BK with perjury.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant (Evidence Nos. 982, 1312), AB, BG, H, and BL

1. A copy of the protocol of interrogation of suspect against the defendant (Evidence No. 1106), a copy of the protocol of interrogation of suspect as of May 4, 2013, and a copy of the protocol of interrogation of suspect as of May 6, 2013

1. The current status of operation of each BZ Team, the implementation status of the I instructions, the report on the main duties of the E group ( February 16, 2009), the implementation status of the E group utilization task, the record recording of the speech of the J in its entirety, the recording of the speech of the E group, the summary of "I instructions and emphasizes", the copy of the receipt related to the operation of the E group O team, and the receipt of AB (15 pages);

1. Each investigation report (the attachment of the judgment in the case of violation of the J Public Official Election Act, etc., the operation behavior of the NIS E team - A.B case, reporting on the necessity of tracking financial transactions in the borrowed account, copy of the subscriber's inquiry details, and the account managed by the NIS EF team A (including external investigators AB) and notice notice from among the facts related to the crime against the J);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness BF, BH and K;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant (Evidence 1572), AR, AT, AO, AK, B, or B, which contains some statements in each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant;

1. Copy of the protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution (Evidence No. 1754);

1. A copy of the BK Interrogation Examination Protocol (No. 4, 13), BH Examination Protocol (No. 7, 203), a copy of the A Interrogation Examination Protocol (No. 30, 2003) and a copy of the A Interrogation Examination Protocol (No. 30, 2013)

1. Each investigation report (in relation to the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act by the J, the necessity to investigate the perjury when a legal testimony is made by a staff member of the NIS, and in relation to the organized crime of the NIS related to the case, such as the opening of the NIS in 2013, abolition - coercion of false statements, and perjury).

1. Reporting on the progress of the trial as of September 17, 2013; reporting on data related to AU composition; reporting on the previous D investigation response devices related to the pending issue (see, e.g., April 26, 2013); reporting on the investigation response devices related to BM investigation and response devices (see, e.g., May 8, 2013); reporting on the investigation response devices by the head of the former E group related to the pending issue (see, e.g., April 25, 2013); reporting the results of the investigation by the head of the former E group related to the pending issue (see, e.g., April 26, 2013); reporting on the investigation response devices related to the pending issue; response measures taken by the K witness; first witness examination by AT; response measures taken by AT to the examination of the witness, etc.; reporting on AU1 implementation plans related to the pending issue; reporting on the investigation measures related to AU/D amendment; reporting on the content of the present issue;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 18(1), 9(2)2, and 4 of the former National Intelligence Service Act (Amended by Act No. 12266, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) and Articles 18(1), 9(2)2, and 30 of the Criminal Act (including the involvement in political activities), Article 255(3)2, and 85(1) of the former Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 152(1), 31(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, respectively.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crimes of violating the National Intelligence Service Act and the crimes of violating the Public Official Election Act) (the punishment prescribed for the crimes of violating the National Intelligence Service Act with heavier punishment)

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 153 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (i.e., perjury since it has been white)

1. Article 18 (3) and Article 18 (1) 3 of the former Public Official Election Act (Article 18 (1) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 18 (2) of the same Act (Article 18 (3) of the same Act and Article 18 (1) 2 of the same Act concerning

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment for perjury and each perjury shall be imposed, and the punishment for concurrent crimes committed against BK with the largest punishment shall be imposed) on which a judgment of conviction is rendered.

1. As to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act and the Public Official Election Act

A. Whether a public contest with external researchers AB is recognized

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

AB, rather than the direction of the defendant, voluntarily up to the Internet according to the custody of the AB, posted the same article as the list of crimes listed in attached Table 1 on the Internet, and puts pros and cons on the AB. Therefore, the AB's political intervention and election-in cyber activities are not liable to the defendant.

2) Determination

In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through a functional control based on the intention of joint processing, which is a subjective requirement, as well as an objective requirement. Here, the intention of joint processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to allow it without restraint. It should be one of the two with intent to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent, and to shift one’s own intent to AB by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004). The following facts and circumstances revealed by the court’s lawful adoption and investigation, namely, (i) the Defendant, a university motive, was registered as an external assistant of the NIS, and ordered and paid the cyber activities, and (ii) the Defendant shared AB account with AB account and gave instructions to the cyber activities, and (iii) the Defendant presented the guidelines for cyber activities that were conducted by the Cyber Team staff to AB access or confirmed the results of the cyber activities to AB account.

B. Whether a recruitment is recognized with the president, etc.

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Defendant first worked in NW E, and since the activities of 0 teams within the NIS began around March 2009, the previous 2009, only senior executives, such as J, K, and E L, are responsible for political intervention, election intervention, or cyber activities as a principal offender, and there is no public recruitment relationship between the Defendant and its subordinate employees.

2) Determination

A person who participated in a crime committed in the course of an inclusive crime may be held liable as a co-principal for the crime after the participation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do163, Jun. 27, 1997). Whether a person is held liable as a co-principal should be determined based on whether the intent to co-processing and functional control can be recognized. As such, the mere fact that the Defendant was placed in the E group after the team activities commenced does not deny liability as a co-principal.

In light of the following facts and circumstances revealed by this court, i.e., ① the Defendant worked for NW E T/F under the NW E Group from the dispatch to OC, and directly performed cyber activities under the direction of J, K, L, M Team team leader, etc., ② the Defendant was transferred to and managed the 0 team consisting of the team leader when the Defendant works as the F Team BNpt (Evidence Record 9:8253 pages), and as seen earlier, the Defendant registered AB, a university motive, as an external assistant, and managed AB as an external assistant. In light of the fact that the Defendant and the senior executive members of the State Council related to cyber activities of NW Group AB are sufficiently recognized.

C. Whether some of the notices and comments mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) and the pros and cons are involved in political activities

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Attached 1 Crimes List 35, 43, 55, 87, 215, 218, 221, 225, 227, 229, 235, 240, 348, 355, 357, and 372 do not include the contents supporting or opposing the position and policy of a specific political person or political party. Of the pro-con character listed in attached Table 1 List 2, the number 30, 43 among the pro-con character listed in attached Table 1 List 30 and 43 do not constitute an act of participating in political activities.

2) Determination

In a case where an individual act constituting a blanket crime ought to meet the elements of each crime, in principle, in a case where posting a letter on the Internet or an act of pro and pro and cons on the Internet bulletin constitutes a crime of violation of the National Intelligence Service Act or a crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act, each individual act ought to be determined by closely examining the overall circumstances, such as the specific contents and context of posting a notice or a character on the Internet, and whether each writing constitutes a political intervention or an election intervention (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1513, Dec. 23, 2015).

In light of Articles 3(1), 9(1), 9(2)2, and 18(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act, among acts of posting or posting comments on the Internet, where it is evident that the contents of the writing are directly supporting or opposing the relevant political party or politician while ordering a specific political party or politician, among acts of posting or posting comments on the Internet, constitutes an act of participation in political activities as a matter of course. Moreover, an act of posting a letter that supports or defends the State’s publicity or incumbent president, or a character on such a notice is intended to cope with North Korea’s black propaganda or political behavior, if the objective purpose or motive leads to support or opposition to a specific political party or politician, such act may be deemed as an act of participation in political activities prohibited by the National Intelligence Service Act. In particular, since the President concurrently holds the status and status as a political person, the act of posting or opposing the current president’s political activities, which is a specific act of supporting or opposing the President.

In light of the above legal principles, the posting of the above crime list (1) Nos. 35, 43, 55, 87, 215, 218, 221, 225, 227, 229, 235, 240, 348, 355, 357, and 372 constitutes an act of participating in political activities as a notice to the effect that the incumbent President's support and defense for the management of state affairs, such as the four-party-based projects, is directly conducted, or that he/she criticizes his/her policies, and the posting of the notice that supports and defends the management of state affairs of the incumbent president constitutes an act of participating in political activities. Now 30, 43 among the pro-con character described in the attached table (2) of the above attached table constitutes an act of participating in political activities.

D. Whether the defendant is liable for some pros and cons of the character described in the crime sight table (4)

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Attached 1 Crimes List 375, 401, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 477, 512, 602, 603, 644, 668, 669, 688, 689, 689, 690, 756, 757, 760, 761, 762, 762, 60, 762, 602, 603, 644, 668, 688, 689, 690, 756, 757, 760, 761, 762, and

2) Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, i.e., the above pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and the pro and.

2. As to the crime of perjury

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

BH and BK passed a resolution of perjury through the response team of the NIS against the E group and the statement training of AS room ATS or the meeting of BI team leader BF, and the Defendant did not participate in the above education and interview. In addition, B and B were not in a relationship with the Defendant at the time of testimony of the pertinent statutory testimony, and in particular, B and B were not in a position to compel BH to give a perjury a perjury, even before AU is constituted.

B. Relevant legal principles

Although it is difficult to become an act of aiding and abetting another person to commit a certain crime, it is not sufficient to force another person to commit a certain crime, and there is no restriction on the means and methods of aiding and abetting. Therefore, in order to establish a crime, it does not need to induce by specifying detailed matters, such as the date, time, place, and method of the crime, and if the principal offender passes a resolution to commit a certain crime, the principal offender shall be established. However, since the principal offender must pass a resolution to commit the crime by the principal offender, if the principal offender has already passed a resolution to commit the crime, there is no room to establish the principal offender (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do542, May 14, 191).

1) Facts recognized

In full view of the various evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

A) Organization reorganization of the NIS E and the role of the defendant

(1) Around April 2013, when the prosecution investigation into the case of the E group was conducted on the part of the NIS, the NIS suspended organizational restructuring with the content that reduces the E-group BU, BV, F, and BW team into BX and BI team. At that time, the NIS organized AE and ordered AE to take action against the investigation and trial of the case of the E, and then ordered AS room AT, BD team leader B, BF, etc. to take action against the investigation and trial. The core of the response activity above was to prevent the E-group employees from disclosing the false statement about the issue and how to spread arguments.

(2) According to the above reorganization, the Defendant moved from BY Twit to BY T, and thereafter, the F Team BH, Q, BK, and AF, who was a member of the F Team BJ T, appeared at the prosecutor's office and court as a witness or witness of the case in question and made a statement, led the NIS to play a role of informing the NIS employees present at the prosecutor's office and the court in the course of the investigation and the response to the case in question, of interview or education schedule, and allowing them to participate in the interview or education schedule. In this regard, the Defendant stated in the prosecutor's office that the attorney-at-law in charge of interview or education was aware of the E group employees, and the attorney-at-law was trained with the attorney-at-law with anticipated questions, and that he was given the experience of his statement (Evidence record 28, 39429 pages).

B) Composition of the AU and the role of the defendant

(1) On October 2013, the NIS formed AU as the head of the AT team around October 14, 2013, and the Defendant participated in AU with BB in charge of administrative affairs under the control of the E group.

(2) In the AU, the Defendant, together with the roles of contact, interview, and education with the E team employees, was well aware of the facts as the chief executive officer in charge, and performed the role of organizing facts, explaining and supporting the E team’s duties and duties system, collecting evidential materials, etc. on the grounds that the testimony and legal experience in witness testimony and testimony (Evidence 37No 9895 of the evidence record). The Defendant also prepared an anticipated newspaper for the NIS employees.

C) Prosecution and court’s statement process

(1) On May 12, 2013, BH was present at the prosecution and under the investigation of a witness, and on October 7, 2013, the court.

The testimony was made by attending the prosecution, and the contact with the defendant was received before attending the prosecution, and interview was held with the E group office to the E group office, and the head of ER was contacted by the defendant and received education from the AS office and the AT even before attending the court.

(2) The Defendant instructed BH to make a false testimony to the effect that he did not receive Schlages and arguments in writing separate from the aforementioned AT’s statement education, and that he did not have any hostilely gathered and shared with other employees, IDs, etc.,” and stated that the Defendant should do so for the purpose of organization. In this regard, the Defendant stated that BH said statement was made as above because AR instructed AR to be made in the AS room (Evidence No. 46, 12865 pages of evidence record).

D) BK’s prosecutor’s office and court’s statement process

(1) On May 12, 2013, K was present at the public prosecutor’s office and was under a witness investigation, and was present at the court on November 4, 2013, 2013, which was under leave of absence, and gave testimony. B took contact with the Defendant before attending the public prosecutor’s office, and met AR with BF in the E group office, and even before attending the court, BF and the Defendant were contacted with the Defendant as the E group office in return for contact with the Defendant.

(2) At the time of the interview, the Defendant and BF instructed BK to testify to testify as follows: “AU was directed that BK was involved in politics or was involved in election.” In this regard, the Defendant stated that BK was told by the prosecution that BK was not in conflict with the statements made between the NIS employees (Evidence No. 46 pages 12867 of the evidence record).

2) Specific determination

In light of the above facts and the various circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the defendant, in particular, ordered the E group employees to make a false statement through interview or statement education. The defendant was well aware of the fact, and took part in it, and performed the role of communication, interview, education, etc. with employees, and continued such role even after AU formation. ② B and B were employees who worked together with the defendant in the F Team B T T T T T TK before the example and continued to depend on the past portion of the response to the E group case occurred in the course of performing their duties at the time. ③ B H stated that the prosecution divided the largest conversation with the defendant and made a false statement with the defendant at the direction of the defendant, and BK stated that the defendant made a false statement with the reason why the prosecutor reversed the statement on the premise of false testimony in this court, it can be sufficiently acknowledged that the defendant conspired with the members of the above AU, BF, and HK under the response period set up by AE in accordance with its reasoning.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

(a) Crimes of paragraph (1): Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years and suspension of qualifications for not more than five years;

(b) Crimes of paragraph (2): Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

A. With respect to the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act No. 1 in the holding, the sentencing guidelines are not set, and since the violation of the Public Official Election Act is mutually competition with the violation of the National Intelligence Service Act, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

B. Judgment No. 2

1) Each perjury

[Determination of Punishment] No. 1 (Perjury)

[Special Convictd Persons] None

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months (Basic Area)

2) Perjury

[Determination of Punishment] No. 1 (Perjury)

[Special Sentencings] Mitigations: Confessions of self-denunciation

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one month to ten months (Discretionary Zone)

3) Scope of recommendations according to standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to June 10 up to June 10.

3. The crime of this case is committed in collusion with the executive officers of the NIS EF team, including the president, and employees of the EF team. The defendant, who is the president of the NIS, has engaged in cyber activities prohibited under the Act on the National Intelligence Service by supporting and defending the president and the political parties belonging thereto, opposing and slandering the political parties belonging thereto, making use of the status as public officials prohibited under the Act on the Election of Public Officials. The defendant, in order to reduce and abolish the above cyber activities, was engaged in activities as members of the AU organized by the NIS and instigated the above cyber activities to the staff of the NIS. In addition, the legislative purport of the NIS Act that intends to prevent the political intervention of the NIS staff of the NIS while having damaged the fairness of the election due to the organized crime by the defendant, etc., and had a separate penal provision, shall not be held liable to the extent equivalent to the illegality in light of the fact that the discovery of substantial truth in the trial is delayed due to the defendant's perjury and perjury.

However, the Defendant, within the F Team, committed the instant crime in the course of passive implementation of the direction of the upper part, which was given through the command system as a member of the strike or AU under the direction of the head of the team, and in particular, committed the Defendant’s cyber activities at the level of performance of duties, and the perception of illegality was somewhat weak, and the amount of money paid to outside professionals (including supporting character) and the number of political interventions and election opening notices (including supporting character) compared to other employees in the similar position is considerably low. The Defendant has been faithfully working in the NIS for at least 20 years, and the Defendant has recognized his mistake and has no criminal record.

In addition, each sentence shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions shown in the pleading.

Judges

The presiding judge and judges;

Judges Kim Young-ho

Judgment of the Prosecutor

Note tin

1) Specific to the extent that the facts charged and basic facts are identical, and that there is no concern about substantial disadvantage in exercising the defendant’s right of defense

The facts are partially recognized differently from the facts charged.

2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 38 of the Criminal Act, Article 18(3) of the former Public Official Election Act, for concurrent crimes that involve an election criminal and other offences, the sentence shall be imposed separately.

The purport of this provision is to minimize the impact of other crimes, which are not an election criminal, on the sentencing of the election criminal.

Article 38 of the Criminal Code shall be excluded and sentenced separately, so other crimes in a mutually competitive relationship with an election criminal.

A person who commits an election crime under the Public Official Election Act shall be punished for the most severe crime pursuant to Article 40 of the Criminal Act, and in this case, an election crime under the Public Official Election Act.

달리 취급하는 입법 취지와 그 조항의 개정 연혁에 비추어 볼 떄 그 처벌받는 가장 중한 죄가 선거범인지 여부를 묻지 않고

All crimes in the relationship between an election criminal and the ordinary concurrent relationship shall be treated as an election criminal in total (Supreme Court Decision 9Do636 delivered on April 23, 199, etc.).

[Reference]

3) The National Intelligence Service Act provides the NIS’s duties to “(1) foreign information, domestic security guards, acts to acts to acts to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act to act

The collection, preparation, and distribution of an international criminal organization, 2. Security duties for documents, materials, facilities, and regions belonging to the national secrets, 3 Civil Wars in the Criminal Act

(In the Republic of Korea) Crimes of foreign aggressions, Crimes of Disturbances in the Military Criminal Act, Crimes of Illegal Use of Secret Code, Crimes as prescribed by the Military Secret Protection Act, and Crimes as prescribed by the National Security Act.

The investigation into crimes, ④ the investigation into crimes related to the duties of a staff member of the National Intelligence Service, ⑤ the planning and coordination of information and security duties.

J. (Article 3(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act) and “the Director, the Deputy Director, and other personnel of the National Intelligence Service shall not engage in any political activity.”

The NIS prohibits the NIS from participating in the political activities (Article 9(1) of the Act), and one of the acts of participating in the political activities is "this position".

for the purpose of gathering opinions supporting or opposing a particular political party or politician, or of creating such public opinions, a specific political party

An act of spreading opinions or facts that praises or slanders a particular politician (Article 9(2)2 of the same Act)

(1) Notwithstanding such a provision, a person involved in a political activity shall be subject to criminal punishment (Article 18(1) of the same Act).

(b)in the case of