[2] Criteria for determining the suitability of a expressive material

[3] The case holding that pro-enemy contents under the National Security Act constitute pro-enemy contents

[2] If the contents of a expressive material are active and aggressive expressions threatening the existence and security of the State and democratic fundamental order, which are protected under the National Security Act, it goes beyond the limit of the freedom of expression. Whether the expressive material has such an objection shall be determined not only by the overall contents of the expressive material, but also by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the motive for preparation, the form of the expressive act itself and its external contents, and the situation at the time

[3] The case holding that it constitutes a pro-enemy pro-enemy pro-enemy organization in light of all the circumstances, including the contents of the inducements which promote and instigate the successful holding of the 6th national unification group centered on North Korea, and contain the contents of the federal unification plan, the number of the U.S. files, the National Security Elimination of Korea, and the conclusion of a peace agreement, etc., which are all asserted in connection with North Korea, are pro-enemy pro-enemy organization, and the unification plan of the federal system is presented as an ideal unification plan, and the South Korean government presented as an ideal unification plan, and the North Korean government is able to unification by independent decision-making only when he/she is independent from the U.S., in addition to the inducements that contain the contents that the

1. As to Defendant 1 and 2’s ground of appeal No. 3

In a situation where it is obvious that North Korea is threatening to the fundamental order of our free democracy, even though South and North Korea joined the United Nations at the same time, and South and North Korea signed a written agreement on the reconciliation, inequality and exchange between South and North Korea, and a conversation between South and North Korea is continued, North Korea cannot be deemed an anti-government organization under the National Security Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1624, Sept. 26, 1995; 96Do2673, Dec. 23, 1996). The grounds for appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

2. As to Defendant 1 and 2’s ground of appeal Nos. 2, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below held that the non-indicted 2's activities of the South and North Korea's unification headquarters, such as the South and North Korea's 8/15 Korean Peninsula, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1777, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 177, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 190, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 177, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 177, the non-indicted 3's non-indicted 577, the non-indicted 3's non-indicted 577, the non-indicted 199, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 5777, the non-indicted 193'M.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. The ground of appeal pointing this out is not acceptable.

3. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 4, Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 1, Defendant 3’s ground of appeal No. 2, Defendant 4’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

가. 원심판결과 원심이 인용한 제1심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 피고인들이 "남측 정부가 범민족적인 범민련을 이적단체로 규정하고 모함하여 남측 범민련 인사들에 대해 끊임없는 탄압을 일삼고 있다. 국가보안법은 민족대단결을 가로막고 통일을 방해하는 근본적인 장애물로서 남측의 반통일정권에 의해 이용된 도구이다. 작년 김일성 주석의 서거에 애도를 표하고 북녘동포의 슬픔에 동참하고자 한 남측 애국민중들의 조문을 파괴적으로 탄압한 것에서 보듯 국가보안법은 야만적이요 반인륜적인 희대의 악법이다. 민족대단결로 국가보안법을 없애고 반세기 동안 전쟁상태를 지속하고 있는 현 휴전협정을 영구평화를 보장하는 평화협정으로 발전시키며 남과 북의 양 체제가 공존하는 연방제로 통일을 실현하자."는 취지의 내용을 담은 '95년 제6차 범민족대회를 위하여. 국가보안법 철폐를 위한 특별결의'라는 유인물, "범민족 남측본부는 제6차 범민족대회를 성공적으로 개최하기 위해 모든 노력을 경주할 것이다. 범민족대회는 자주적인 민간통일운동의 대표성과 정통성, 역사성을 지닌 대회로써 범민련을 중심으로 남·북·해외의 자주적인 통일애국세력이 1990년부터 1994년까지 5차례에 걸쳐 남측 당국의 탄압과 봉쇄를 투쟁으로 돌파하여 통일의 3대원칙을 확인하고 연방제 통일방안, 주한미군철수, 국가보안법철폐, 평화협정체결 등을 합의, 천명해온 거족적인 통일광장이다."는 취지의 내용을 담은 '북경회담의 합의내용을 받아 안아 8·15 민족공동행사와 제6차 범민족 대회를 기필코 성사시켜내자'라는 유인물, "이승만 정권 시기에는 무력 북진통일을 통일방안으로 삼았다. 이는 반민족적일 뿐만 아니라 반민중적인 발상이며 소수 호전적 반공선동가를 빼놓고는 어떠한 사람의 지지도 획득할 수 없었다. 통일운동의 원칙과 올바른 통일방안, 통일을 가로막고 있는 요소가 무엇이며 무엇이 분단을 만들었는가에 대하여 분명하게 짚고 이에 따라 통일의 장애요소를 제거하는 것으로부터 통일방안에 접근해야 할 것이다. 통일방안으로는 정치, 군사, 외교적으로 자주의 원칙을 견지할 수 있는 지위를 갖는 연방정부의 형태를 가져야 한다. 연방정부의 권한과 임무는 남북이 동수를 갖는 대표에 의한 민족회의(또한 연방의회)의 결정에 의한다. 그리고 그 밑에 남북 각 지역정부는 민중의 자주적 의사결정에 따른 체계가 들어서야 한다. 남한의 경우 아직 미국으로부터 정치, 경제, 군사 등 모든 측면에서 자주적이지 못하다. 그렇다면 이러한 통일의 문제 역시 남한정부로 하여금 어떠한 형태로든 미국으로부터 자주성을 강제해 낼 때만이 가능한 것이다."는 취지의 내용을 담은 '민족통일의 올바른 방안에 대하여'라는 유인물, "연방제 통일방안을 대중적으로 조직하여야 하며, 미제국주의와 사대매국정권의 모진 탄압과 시련을 이겨내고 통일구국의 길로 나아가야 한다. 연방제 통일방안을 확산하기 위하여 혼신의 힘을 기울여야 하며, 국가보안법을 철폐하고 주한미군을 돌려보내기 위하여 투쟁하여야 한다."는 취지의 내용을 담은 '조국의 평화와 자주통일을 위한 제6차 범민족대회신문 제1호'라는 유인물을 제작 또는 취득하거나 반포한 사실을 인정하였다.

B. If the contents of a expressive material are active and aggressive expressions threatening the existence and security of the State and democratic fundamental order, which are protected under the National Security Act, the freedom of expression is beyond the limit of freedom of expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do2033, Mar. 31, 1992). Whether such a expressive material has an objection shall be determined not only by the overall contents of the expressive material, but also by taking into account all the circumstances such as the motive for the expressive material’s preparation, the form of the expressive act and its external relation, and the situation at the time of the expressive act (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1035, Dec. 23, 196).

In light of the records, from among the above inducements, the inducements such as "special resolution for the elimination of the National Security Act", "the 8/15 national co-operation and the 6th national co-operation for the 8/15th national co-operation with the contents of the agreement," and "the 6th national co-operation for the peace and independence of the fatherland" are prohibited from participating in the successful hosting of the 6th national co-operation which was promoted mainly with North Korea, and the overall contents of which were promoted by the 6th national co-operation with North Korea, and it is clear that the 5th national co-operation with the North Korean co-government organization violated the above anti-government organization's misunderstanding of the contents and the 5th national co-operation with the North Korean co-government organization's misunderstanding of the contents and the 5th national anti-government organization's misunderstanding of the contents of the 1st national co-government organization's activities, and thus, it is not possible for the court below to consider the above inducements of the North Korean co-government.

4. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant 3’s ground of appeal No. 3

Inasmuch as the provision of Article 7(5) and (1) of the National Security Act is reasonably interpreted in light of the purpose of the National Security Act, it cannot be deemed that the concept of constituent elements of a crime under the above provision infringes on the essential contents of the principle of no punishment without prison labor, since the concept of constituent elements of a crime is vague and broad (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do930, May 24, 1994). The grounds for

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)