1. Examining the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of all of the charges of violating the National Security Act (excluding the part on which the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the grounds for appeal) and violating the National Security Act (excluding the part on which the Defendant rendered a verdict of not guilty of the grounds for appeal) regarding the possession of expressive materials in the instant facts charged. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “foreign designation”, “foreign purpose”, and “foreign expressive materials” in the National Security Act.

2. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the prosecutor on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the National Security Act (e.g., praise, etc.) regarding the possession of the re-re-re-re-re-re-re-alatory expressions in the judgment of the court of first instance among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the prosecutor on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime regarding each of the facts charged in the instant case regarding each of the violation of the National Security Act (mail, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of violation of the National Security Act and admissibility of evidence.

In addition, in the interpretation of Article 383, subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a prosecutor cannot assert the grounds for appeal that the amount of punishment imposed by the court below is minor (Supreme Court Decision September 15, 2005).