1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the National Security Act by producing and distributing pro-enemy contents among the facts charged in the instant case to B in e-mail, and the violation of the National Security Act by producing and transporting pro-enemy contents, which are the preliminary facts charged, on May 14, 2008. The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the National Security Act by selling and transporting pro-enemy contents, which are the preparatory facts charged. On April 17, 2007, the issue of the violation of the National Security Act by acquiring the pro-enemy contents as of the pro-enemy contents, as of the pro-enemy contents’ meaning of social transformation in 11th century, there is no proof of a crime, and found the Defendant guilty

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the existence of representation materials, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the National Security Act (the composition, etc. of a foreign organization) among the facts charged in the instant case and the remainder of the acquittal portion (including the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by either violating Article 4 of the Constitution, Articles 308-2 and 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.