1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the part regarding the violation of the National Security Act due to the holding of Q Games, the part regarding the violation of the National Security Act (e.g., praise, etc.) among the instant charges that were modified in the lower court, and the part regarding the production and distribution of pro-enemy materials, and the part regarding the violation of the National Security Act (e.g., praise, etc.) due to the possession of the documents

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 act of immigration assistance and pro-enemy

The prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below on the conviction is too uneasible.

However, in the interpretation of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a prosecutor cannot claim as the ground of appeal that the determination of the court below's punishment is minor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1952, Sept. 15, 2005). Therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation in this part is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the charges except the aforementioned not guilty portion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 establishment of joint principal offenders, the aptitude of pro-enemy materials, and the purpose

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