[2] The meaning of the dual purpose under Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act

[2] Article 7(5) of the National Security Act provides that the purpose of the act under Paragraph (1), (3), or (4) does not need to be the active intent or final recognition of the act, and it can be satisfied with dolusent recognition. Thus, the contents of the expressive materials must be objectively viewed to contain a different character, such as acting in concert with the act of inter-government organization, such as inter-government organization, publicity, and inciting North Korea, which is an anti-government organization. Furthermore, if the expressive materials are manufactured and distributed in concert with the act of inter-government organization, which is an anti-government organization, and objectively, if the expressive materials were manufactured and distributed in concert with the act of propaganda in South and North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and the contents of the expressive materials must be deemed to meet the requirements of the anti-government organization, so long as there was no dubal perception that the act would become an anti-government organization, and therefore, there was no dubal perception that they would be an anti-government organization or its activities.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the acts of concert under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act shall be punished only where there is a specific and dangerous danger and injury to the national security or democratic fundamental order among acts of acting in concert with the assertion of North Korea and pro-enemy activities under the recognition that they are favorable to North Korea's political rights. The acts of producing and distributing pro-enemy materials under Article 7 (5) of the same Act shall be denied the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and the contents of the expressive materials shall be asserted to be in favor of the government in a manner consistent with the efficiencing of North Korea, or to be transferred to the government in a manner consistent with the efficenciated of North Korea's unification, or, even if it is alleged to reform through the improvement of the social system on the basis of free democracy, it can be acknowledged that there was a violation of the National Security Act's basic order by explicitly expressing the existence of the Republic of Korea and the basic order of the Constitution by means of violence, etc., and it is difficult to recognize that the contents of the defendant's desire or the above acts are against the State.

However, if the contents of expressive materials are active and aggressive expressions threatening the existence and security of the State and democratic fundamental order, which are protected by the National Security Act, they exceed the limit of freedom of expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do203, Mar. 31, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 95Do1121, Jul. 28, 1995). Whether they have such aptitude should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the motive for the preparation, etc. of the expressive act itself, matters related to outside and outside, circumstances at the time of expressive act, etc. Meanwhile, North Korea established the unification of the Republic of Korea as the basic goal, and set the history of the Republic of Korea as the class of domination for the class of control of the Republic of Korea, and formed the anti-government and anti-government organization of South Korea as an anti-government organization of North Korea, and formed the anti-government and anti-government organization of South Korea as an anti-government organization of North Korea as an anti-government and anti-government.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the defendant argued that the unification plan of North Korea pursuant to North Korea's inciting North Korea's hostile propaganda, the conclusion of peace agreements, the repeal of the National Security Act and the National Security Planning Department Act, the destruction of iron bars, the number of military storage facilities, the Korea-U.S. administrative agreements and the Korea-U.S. defense treaties, etc., were resolved to scriffe the two-way integrated wire wire, and the student movement should be developed in a train. In addition, the student movement, which was promoted by the defendant, did not affect the unification movement of the Korea-U.S. as a whole, and it did not seem to have been aware that some social organizations and individuals in South Korea were an external organization of North Korea, and that there was no reason to believe that the defendant's act of producing and distributing materials for the purpose of the unification committee of North Korea, such as the production and distribution of materials for the purpose of the National Security Act, and that there was no reason to believe that it had been an unlawful act in the process of the production and distribution of materials.

In addition, the purpose of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is not to recognize the active intent or final recognition of the act under Paragraph (1), (3) or (4) of this Article, and it is sufficiently satisfied with dolusence. Thus, the defendant's expression objectively viewed the contents of the expression as containing the aptitude of acting in concert with the act, such as inter-government organization, publicity and inciting North Korea, which is an anti-government organization. Furthermore, if there is a dolusence that such act may be transferred, the elements of the above provision are satisfied. In addition, the objective of the above provision is to coordinate North Korea's activities, such as propaganda and inciting North Korea, which are an anti-government organization, and if it was produced and distributed, it does not seem that there was an incomplete perception that the act will be transferred to the person who committed the act, and therefore, it does not constitute an unlawful purpose of 931 or 94 of the National Security Act. Thus, there was no reason to believe that the defendant's remaining materials were 90 or 94 of the Supreme Court en banc Decision.

Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)