국가보안법위반(찬양ㆍ고무등)
All appeals by the defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles) In order to establish the act of dual assistance with respect to the violation of the National Security Act (e.g., support and rubber) caused by the act of anti-state organization activities against the Defendants, there is a clear danger that may cause substantial harm to the national existence and security or the fundamental democratic order.
On May 12, 2013, the Defendants’ meetings at “Z Party” (hereinafter “Z Party”) do not have any apparent risk of substantial harm to the national security or democratic fundamental order by merely transmitting the discussions on the relevant squad or announcing their opinions. The Defendants’ meetings at “X Training Center” on May 10, 2013 and each of the instant meetings on May 12, 2013 do not have any apparent risk of substantial harm to the national security or democratic basic order.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendants guilty.
B) Defendant A and B’s violation of the National Security Act (e.g., supporting volume, rubber, etc.) due to the proposal of the Doctrine of the Revolution does not have any evidence to prove whether the above Defendants created the Doctrine of the Revolution, and there is a aptitude in the family affairs of the Doctrine of the Doctri
There is no recognition.
Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant A and B of this part of the facts charged, either by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
C) As to the possession of the expressive materials by Defendant A and C, the above Defendants possessed each different expressive materials as indicated in the lower judgment.
not, but there is an aptitude for each of the above representations.
Now, the Defendants did not have any other purpose.
Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A and C guilty of this part of the facts charged, either by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
(b)a prosecutor;