[1] Whether the National Security Act is unconstitutional (negative)

[2] Whether the court's dismissal of an application for an unconstitutionality motion and the proceeding of the court is against Article 107 (1) of the Constitution, because the provision of the National Security Act is not deemed unconstitutional (negative)

[3] Whether the norm of the National Security Act has been lost due to the conclusion and entry into force of the 'Agreement on the Settlement, Indeption, and Exchange and Cooperation between South and North Korea' (negative)

[4] Whether the act of communication between South and North Korea constitutes Article 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act and thus excluded from the application of the National Security Act shall aim at inter-Korean exchange and cooperation (affirmative)

[5] Whether North Korea is an anti-government organization (affirmative)

[6] The case holding that the six-year Korean University Federation of Korean Universities and Colleges (KIF) is a dual organization

[7] The meaning of "subordination" under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act

[1] The principle of international peace and peaceful unification declared by the Constitution in light of its full text and Articles 4 and 5 is premised on the premise that it does not harm the provisional order of free democracy. Thus, in the situation where it is clear that there is no clear sign that North Korea has given up the waiver of the fundamental order of free democracy in our society with a military force, and it threatens our democratic fundamental order, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the National Security Act, the purpose of which is to secure national security, survival and freedom of citizens by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the national security, and it cannot be deemed that the concept of the elements of each crime under the National Security Act, which is reasonably interpreted in light of its purpose, violates the fundamental contents of the principle of no punishment without law, since the concept of the elements of the National Security Act, which is provided by the National Security Act, is ambiguous and broad, cannot be deemed as violating the fundamental rights of our Constitution, but it does not infringe upon the basic rights of our society, the freedom of conscience, freedom of press and publication, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the legislative purpose and rights are limited within the limit.

[2] In determining that the various provisions of the National Security Act are not unconstitutional, the defendant's application for proposal of unconstitutionality is dismissed, and the action taken as it is against Article 107 (1) of the Constitution.

[3] Even if there was a joint name between the Republic of Korea and North Korea declared three principles, such as independence, peace, and national unity in 1972, the National Security Act cannot be deemed to have lost its normative power, even though the agreement on reconciliation, infertility, and exchange and cooperation between the two Koreas was concluded and entered into force.

[4] Article 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act provides that "this Act shall apply in preference to other Acts to activities aimed at inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, such as coming to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and from North Korea, to the extent that it is justified." Thus, in order to exclude the application of the National Security Act as the act of coming to and going to and going to and from South and North Korea falls under the above provision, the act of coming to and going

[5] In a clear situation where North Korea is a threat to the fundamental order of our free democracy, even if South and North Korea joined the United Nations simultaneously, and North Korea has obtained approval from the international community as a single sovereign country, and North Korea has signed an agreement on reconciliation, infinite and exchange between South and North Korea, as well as an agreement on reconciliation, infinite and exchange between South and North Korea, North Korea cannot be deemed as an anti-government organization under the National Security Act.

[6] The case holding that the sixth Korean University Federation of Students of the Republic of Korea adopted violent revolutions that correspond to the North Korean unification routes, and thus, it is an organization with the purpose of praiseing, encouraging, promoting, and aiding and abetting such activities, which is a dual organization as provided by Article 7 of the National Security Act

[7] Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act includes not only cases where an anti-government organization or a member thereof directly receives an order, but also cases where an order is again received from a person under its order, and the order includes a concept including instructions and orders, and there is no restriction on the form of the order.

[1] Articles 12 and 37 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 1 of the National Security Act / [2] Article 107 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 1 of the National Security Act / [3] Article 2 of the National Security Act / [4] Article 2 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act / [5] Article 2 of the National Security Act / [6] Article 7 (3) of the National Security

[1] [5] Supreme Court Decision 93Do1730 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 308), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2673 delivered on December 23, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 509) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do1395 delivered on July 28, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2356 delivered on May 16, 1997), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2969 delivered on September 29, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 198, 1997) 29Do1979 delivered on July 16, 1997 [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Do9799 delivered on July 29, 205 (Gong1997, 1802)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Or-Nam et al. and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 99No1248 delivered on August 24, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. 120 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. The principle of international peace and peaceful unification with the full text of Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution is premised on the fact that it does not harm the fundamental order of free democracy. Thus, in the situation where it is evident that North Korea has renounced to the fundamental order of free democracy with the strong military force of our society, and it threatens our society, it cannot be deemed that the National Security Act for the purpose of securing national safety and survival and freedom of citizens by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the national security is in violation of the Constitution. It cannot be deemed that the concept of elements of each crime prescribed by the National Security Act, which is reasonably interpreted in light of its legislative purpose, infringes on the essential contents of the principle of no punishment without the law, since it constitutes fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the freedom of conscience, the freedom of press and publication are not restricted by the Constitution, but it cannot be deemed that it does not violate the fundamental principles of no punishment without the law, 97 Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da1979 Decided September 19, 2008.

2. Article 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act provides that "this Act shall apply in preference to other Acts within the extent deemed justifiable with respect to activities aimed at inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, such as coming to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and from North Korea," so that the act of going to and going to and from South Korea constitutes a provision above and thus excluded from the application of the National Security Act should first aim at inter-Korean exchange and cooperation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1656, Sept. 9, 197; 96Do2158, Nov. 12, 1996). In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below after lawful examination of evidence, the defendant cannot be deemed to have been for the purpose of the inter-Korean exchange and cooperation between North Korea and North Korea, and thus, the court below's error in the application of the above Act cannot be said to be the defendant. There is no ground to challenge this point.

3. 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 simultaneously, and North Korea has obtained approval from the international community as a single sovereign country, and North Korea has signed an agreement on reconciliation, infinite and exchange between South and North Korea, it cannot be said that North Korea is not an anti-government organization under the National Security Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1395, Feb. 28, 1997; 96Do2673, Dec. 23, 1996). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no ground to criticize this.

4. Based on the evidence duly admitted through the examination of evidence, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's lock-in and escape, meeting, rubber, and obscenity acts in this case are clearly in danger of endangering the nation's existence and security or harming free democratic fundamental order in light of the defendant's purpose, motive, circumstance, and circumstances at the time, etc., and that the defendant knowingly committed such act. In light of the records and comparison of the relevant evidence, the court below's fact-finding of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as lack of reason, violation of the rules of evidence, and misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the arguments. There is no ground to challenge this part.

5. The court below, based on evidence duly admitted through the examination of evidence, determined that the Korean University Federation of Students (Mag-man) succeeded to the National Council of Representative of Students (Mag-man) in 193, and formed a 6th anniversary of May 198, which constituted an anti-government organization as part of propaganda and inciting North Korea as part of propaganda and inciting the Republic of Korea. As for the unification issue, the court below held that the Korean society is an anti-government organization's strong interest in terms of "the anti-government society with an economic power" and held that the 96th century was an anti-government organization with an anti-government organization with an intention to promote the unification of the Republic of Korea. The court below held that the 96th century was an anti-government organization with an anti-government organization with an intention to promote the unification of the Republic of Korea, and that the 9th National Security Act was an anti-government organization with an anti-government organization with an intention to promote the unification of the Republic of Korea. The court below held that the 96th National Security Act was an anti-government organization with an anti-government organization with a view.

6. 국가보안법 제6조 제2항이 정하고 있는 잠입·탈출죄에 있어서의 지령을 받는다고 함은 반국가단체 또는 그 구성원으로부터 직접 지령을 받는 경우뿐만 아니라 그 지령을 받는 자로부터 다시 지령을 받는 경우까지를 포함하는 것이고, 또한 그 지령은 지시와 명령을 포함하는 개념으로서 반드시 상명하복의 지배관계가 있을 것을 요하지 아니하고 그 지령의 형식에도 아무런 제한이 없다 고 할 것인바(대법원 1997. 11. 25. 선고 97도2084 판결, 1995. 9. 26. 선고 95도1624 판결 등 참조), 원심은 적법한 증거조사를 통하여 채택한 증거들을 종합하여, 범조국통일범민족청년학생연합(약칭 범청학련)의 결성 당시에는 조선학생위원회가 범청학련 북측본부의 구성단체였으나, 점차로 조선노동당의 전위조직인 사회주의로동청년동맹(약칭 사로청)의 주요 구성원들이 범청학련 북측본부의 구성원으로 활동하다가 1996. 4.경 북경에서 개최된 범청학련 공동의장단회의에서 범청학련 규약 제5조를 '범청학련 조직은 통일을 염원하는 남·북·해외의 청년학생들로 구성한다'라고 개정하여 범청학련 북측본부의 구성단체를 사실상 사로청으로 격상한 사실, 위와 같이 범청학련 북측본부의 구성단체가 사로청으로 변경되고 범청학련 남측본부의 구성단체인 한총련이 대중성을 상실하고 지도부 중심으로 운영되면서부터 범청학련 사업은 3자연대에 의한 남측본부, 북측본부 및 해외본부의 협의에 의한 것이 아닌 북측본부의 일방적 의견을 남측본부와 해외본부에서 수용하는 형식으로 운영된 사실, 1993. 7.경 한총련 대표로 밀입북하여 '북한에서 개최된 범청학련 통일대축전'에 참석하였다가 범청학련 공동사무국 남측대표로 베를린에 주재하였던 공소외 1 및 1997. 1.경부터 공동사무국 남측대표로 활동하던 공소외 2 등이 1997. 12. 공동사무국을 폐쇄한 후에는 범청학련 해외본부에서 공동사무국의 역할을 대행하였는데 북측본부 주도의 범청학련 운영은 더욱 심화된 사실, 1998. 6. 초순경 조국평화통일위원회(약칭 조평통)의 지휘하에 범청학련 북측본부 주도로 전자메일·팩스 등을 이용하는 방법으로 서울·평양·동경을 연결하여 범청학련 북측본부·남측본부·해외본부가 공동으로 '범청학련 제8차 공동의장단 회의'를 개최하고 1998년을 '민족의 자주와 대단결의 해'로 만들기 위해 1998년 범청학련 핵심사업 중의 하나로 같은 해 8.경 한총련 대표단이 방북하여 북녘문화유적답사 및 공동학술제를 개최하고, 판문점에서 개최되는 제9차 범민족대회 및 제8차 범청학련 통일대축전 등에 참가한다는 계획을 수립함에 따라 제6기 한총련 조국통일위원회 정책실장인 공소외 3 등이 위와 같은 계획 이행을 위하여 한총련 소속 학생을 범청학련 남측대표로 북한으로 보내 위와 같은 각종 행사에 참석시켜 범청학련 북측본부 관계자 및 북한인사들과 소위 자주교류투쟁 및 조국통일방안 등에 대하여 협의할 것을 결정하고 피고인을 방북대표로 선발하게 된 사실, 이에 따라 피고인은 공소외 3 등으로부터 방북활동에 필요한 사전교육을 받고 방북하게 된 사실, 한편 피고인은 방북 중 같은 해 8. 15. 판문점 북측지역 판문각에서 개최된 '민족의 자주와 대단결을 위한 해·내외동포 청년학생 제3차 연석회의'에 참가하여 반국가단체구성원인 범청학련 북측본부 의장 공소외 4로부터 "반통일세력인 대한민국 정부를 상대로 투쟁하라."는 취지의 연설을 듣고, 같은 날 통일각에서 개최된 '제3차 범청학련 총회'에 참석하여 범청학련이 소위 조국통일투쟁의 선봉에 설 것을 역설하고 범청학련 공동사무국의 건설 등 그 조직력 강화의 필요성을 강조하는 내용으로 북측본부측이 미리 준비한 '제3차 범청학련 총회 결의문'을 채택한 바 있고, 같은 해 11. 3. 판문각 앞에서 개최된 '한총련 대표 피고인안전귀환 성사와 국가보안법 철폐요구 범청학련 공동집회'에 참석하여 범청학련 공동성명을 채택하고 판문점을 경유하여 국내로 들어 온 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 그러한 인정사실들을 바탕으로 하여, 범청학련 북측본부가 북한의 대남혁명부서인 통일전선부의 지시에 따라 북한의 대남통일정책을 수립하는 조평통의 지휘를 받고 있고, 또 범청학련이 북측본부의 주도로 운영되고 있어 남측본부는 북측본부의 지시나 명령에 따라 활동하고 있는 점과, 위 북한공산집단의 성격, 위 '민족의 자주와 대단결을 위한 해·내외동포 청년학생 제3차 연석회의'나 '제3차 범청학련 총회' 등은 북한공산집단이 우리의 국론분열 및 내부 교란을 유도하고, 통일전선전술 등의 적화통일전략으로 이용하기 위하여 개최한 것으로 보여지는 점, 그리고 피고인의 입북동기와 목적, 그 경위와 과정 등을 종합하면, 피고인의 이 사건 행위는 국가의 존립·안전을 위태롭게 하거나 자유민주적 기본질서를 위태롭게 한다는 정을 알면서 반국가단체인 북한공산집단으로부터 지령을 받기 위하여 그 지배하에 있는 북한지역으로 탈출하였다가, 그로부터 지령을 받고 대한민국 영역 내로 잠입한 경우에 해당한다고 판단하였는바, 관련 증거들을 기록과 대조하여 검토하여 보면 그와 같은 원심의 사실인정과 판단은 모두 정당하고, 거기에 채증법칙에 위반하여 사실을 오인한 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 이 부분을 다투는 논지도 이유가 없다.

7. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)