TITLE	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do10978 Decided January 22 2015 ¡¼Insurrection Conspiracy National Security Act Violation (Praise Incitement Etc.) Insurrection Agitation¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] In the event presenting a search and seizure warrant is impracticable, whether the search and seizure conducted without presenting a warrant is legal (affirmative) [2] Rationale behind the latter sentence of Article 9(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act providing for the delegation of execution to, or the solicitation of cooperation from, communications institutions, etc., and imposing a duty to keep records on the said institutions / Cases in which an execution agent may delegate to or enlist the cooperation of a third party in ¡°recording of and listening to a conversation,¡± and in such cases, whether a private citizen who is not a communication institution, etc., is still obligated with the duty to keep records (negative) [3] Requirements for the admission into evidence of electronic media, such as an audio recording file of a conversation / Standard for determining the admissibility of an audio recording file that is offered into evidence [4] Elements to establish the offense of agitating for insurrection [5] In the case where Defendant ¡°A,¡± a member of the National Assembly who is affiliated with a certain political party, and Defendant ¡°B,¡± the chairman of the said party¡¯s regional chapter, were indicted on charges of agitating to commit an insurrection by urging more than 130 participants in two assemblies of the so-called organization members to swiftly stage a riot by destroying national infrastructure facilities, etc. across regional districts nationwide, once their leadership issues an order in contingency, for instance, if a war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, the case holding that the judgment below, convicting the Defendants of agitation for insurrection, is justifiable. [6] Elements to establish the offense of conspiracy of insurrection [7] In the case where Defendants, including Defendant A, a member of the National Assembly who is affiliated with a certain political party, and Defendant B, the chairman of the said party¡¯s regional chapter, were indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit an insurrection by acting in concert with more than 130 participants in assemblies of the so-called organization members, to stage a riot as above, the case holding that the judgment below, acquitting the Defendants of the conspiracy of insurrection, is justifiable

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2013Da217498 Decided January 29 2015 ¡¼Damages etc.¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4763 Decided January 15, 2015 ¡¼Injunction against Obstruction of Business¡½