(b) Criteria for distinguishing between anti-government organizations and foreign-government organizations under the National Security Act;

(c) The case holding that “Gu Armed Forces” was an anti-government organization;

D. Requirements for recognition as pro-enemy contents under the National Security Act

B. The ultimate objective of both anti-government organizations and foreign-government organizations under the National Security Act is the same, but the distinction between anti-government organizations and foreign-government organizations is based on the purpose of each organization to directly achieve its activities. In a case where an organization directly and indirectly aims at the name of the government or the national defense itself, it shall be deemed as an anti-government organization, and in a case where an organization aims to assist in the activities of an anti-government organization by praiseing the activities of an anti-government organization on the premise of existence of a separate anti-government organization, it shall be deemed as an anti-government organization

C. The case holding that “Gu Armed Forces” was an anti-government organization.

D. In order to be recognized as pro-enemy expressive materials under the National Security Act, the contents of the expressive materials must be active and aggressive expressions threatening the safety of the Republic of Korea and the free democracy system, which are the protected legal interests of the

(a) As to the fact that the member constituted an anti-government organization, which is a member of the War of the Republic of Korea, and was engaged in the duties of leader;

According to Article 2 of the National Security Act, an anti-government organization refers to a domestic or foreign association or group with the aim of representing the government or disturbing the State, which is equipped with the command command system. Here, an organization equipped with the command command system refers to a group equipped with a system such as a certain deceptive scheme and sharing to maintain the internal order of the organization between two or more specified persons, and to lead the organization.

Meanwhile, under the National Security Act, an anti-government organization is defined as an organization for the purpose of expressing the Government or disturbing the State. An anti-government organization is defined as an organization for the purpose of praise, encouraging, promoting, promoting, or assisting in, or instigating the activities of an anti-government organization or its members or those who are ordered to join it. The ultimate purpose of this organization is to disrupt the State and establish a new government in concert with the objective of promoting an anti-government organization. Thus, the ultimate objective of both an anti-government organization and a dual organization is to lead to the same thing. However, the distinction between an anti-government organization and a dual organization is based on the objective of directly accomplishing an anti-government organization's activities, and if an organization engages in the same purpose directly and firstly, and as a result, in a case where an organization acts as an anti-government organization by praiseing the activities of an anti-government organization on the premise of existence of a separate anti-government organization, it shall be deemed an anti-government organization (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1381, Dec. 13, 1995).

According to the records, if the defendant adopted the declaration of the formation of the Republic of Korea, the order of demotion, and the rules, etc. sent by non-indicted 1, the upper part of Japan, who was ordered by the Ministry of South and North Korea, as an anti-government organization, as they were, and the contact between the defendant and the above non-indicted 1 on January 1993, as they were the contact books between the defendant and the above non-indicted 1, the court below organized the "Gu Council", which is the front part of the Revolution, which is the organization of the Joseon Labor Party, under the routes of the revolution of the South and North Korea, which is the strategy of the South Korean Revolution. The above old Council did not have any violation of the rules and regulations of the Republic of Korea as the front part of the people for the national democratic revolution, which is composed of Kim Il-il and Kim Il-il, and there is no violation of the rules and regulations of the National Security Act, which are the sole purpose of the central government organization's direction and implementation of the above anti-government organization.

(b)with respect to the detection, collection, or divulgence of State secrets, as a counter-espionage;

State secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act are all information and data necessary for the benefit of the Republic of Korea that is not confidential or confirmed against anti-government organizations. It includes all state secrets of each country concerning politics, economy, society, culture, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1951 delivered on October 8, 1993; 94Do126 delivered on April 15, 1994; 94Do930 delivered on May 24, 1994, etc.). According to the records, the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to state secrets under the National Security Act.

C. As to the communication with North Korea's North Korea's order, anti-government organizations:

According to the records, the court below is just in finding that the defendant made communications and contact with the above non-indicted 1, who was ordered by the North Korean government organization as an anti-government organization, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence alleged in the grounds for appeal. This is without merit

D. As to whether there is evidence of reinforcement in addition to confession of some criminal facts

The supporting evidence for confession is sufficient if it can be guaranteed that the facts of confession are not processed, but true, and it does not require the whole or part of the facts of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972, Feb. 23, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 94Do1146, Sept. 30, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 94Do252, Feb. 24, 1995). According to the records, the evidence presented by the first instance court in addition to the confession of the defendant can be sufficiently acknowledged as to the part concerning receipt and correspondence among the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the first instance court's facts of the crime, and the part concerning receipt, report, and documents among those of paragraph 6, and the part concerning the contents of documents among those related to gifts, 24, 25, 32, and 38, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confession and evidence alleged in the ground for appeal.

E. As to the fact that the parties involved in the instant case meet with and instructed them, and the facts constituting the crime related to Nonindicted 4:

According to the records, the court below is just in finding all of the above facts charged, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. This is without merit.

F. As to the pronouncement of a surcharge

According to the records, in filing an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, it is obvious that the defendant did not raise any objection against the sentence of an additional collection charge as a reason for appeal. Thus, it shall not be deemed as the ground for appeal. This is without merit.

G. On the issue of unfair sentencing:

In light of the records, even if examining the various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant constitutes a case where there is a substantial reason to recognize that the sentencing of the Defendant is extremely unfair. This is without merit.

2. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to be recognized as pro-enemy contents under the National Security Act, the contents of the expressive materials must be active and aggressive expressions threatening the safety of the Republic of Korea and the free democracy system (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do2033, Mar. 31, 1992). According to the records, the court below is just in holding that the booker of the defendant's work does not constitute the above in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to pro-enemy contents under the National Security Act. The grounds of appeal are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)