국가보안법위반(찬양ㆍ고무등)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant-Appellant 2013 Go-Ma910-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, and
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) (1) cannot be deemed to be an anti-government organization under Article 2 of the National Security Act; ② Article 7(5) and (1) of the National Security Act is unconstitutional; ③ Some expressive materials that the lower court found guilty are not pro-enemy materials; and ④ the Defendant did not produce or distribute expressive materials as indicated in the facts charged with the purpose of praiseing, encouraging, or aiding and abetting the activities of anti-government organizations with the knowledge of the fact that it may endanger the nation’s existence and security or democratic fundamental
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles on the production and distribution of a part of the defendant's representations, which affected the conclusion of judgment.
B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the production and distribution of pro-enemy pro-enemy contents as of February 22, 2012, September 19, 2012, and October 15, 2012, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant’s publication of some expressive materials on the Internet constitutes an obvious risk of harm to the nation’s existence and security or democratic fundamental order because the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to conclude that it constitutes an act that may cause substantial harm to the nation’s existence and security or democratic fundamental order. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the production and distribution of pro-enemy contents as of October 15, 2012, and determined that the Defendant did not constitute “acquisition of pro-enemy contents” under the judgment of the lower court on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant actively stored in a pro-enemy file. < Amended by Act No. 23788, Oct. 9, 2013>