A Uzbek worker who financed terrorist activities for an Islamic extremist group has also been sentenced to prison in the second trial.



According to the legal community, the Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Case 1-3 (Chief Judge Jo Jung-rae Kim Jae-young and Song Hye-young) sentenced A (30), who was charged with violating the Anti-Terrorism Act, to one year and six months in prison as in the first trial.



Mr. A, who came to Korea on a work visa in July 2017 and worked, met Mr. B, who was raising funds for activities of Islamic terrorist groups in Korea in August 2018.



Person B requested funds, saying, "Combatants are fighting in poor conditions in Syria." Mr. A is charged with remittance of 5.4 million won a total of 13 times for terrorist groups from this time to October of the following year.



He was found to have remitted hundreds of thousands of won to other terrorist groups last year.



The group that Mr. A sent to is an Islamic extremist group founded in Syria, which was designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations (UN) and the United States in 2018 for carrying out car bombing, kidnapping nuns, and bombing military checkpoints. .



During the trial, Mr. A admitted to the fact of the remittance, but claimed that "I thought it was used for the poor, such as women and children hungry for poverty and hunger," but it was not accepted.



The first trial court sentenced the accused to a prison sentence of 1 year and 6 months and ordered a fine of 6 million won, saying, "The defendant is guilty of actively providing funds to a terrorist group that intends and carries out crimes against humanity, such as suicide bombing." .



In the second trial, Mr. A changed his position and admitted the charge, but was sentenced to the same sentence as in the first trial.



The appellate court said, "The guilt is heavy regardless of the amount of funds." "The fact that the court acknowledges and reflects on the crime and has no domestic history of punishment is advantageous, but the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion." said.

Keywords: