The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the possession of video works indicated in the attached list of crimes.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant in relation to the custody of documents, despite the fact-finding or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the portion of innocence (1) by the prosecutor, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the guilty portion (the possession of a video product) ① The Defendant’s possession of a video product recorded in the facts charged should be specified as to whether the purpose of the Defendant’s possession constitutes the purpose of praise, rubber, propaganda, and any act under Article 7(1) of the National Security Act, but the facts charged in the instant case did not clearly state that

Therefore, even though the prosecution of this case should be dismissed, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that judged the substance of the crime of existence.

(2) The facts charged are specified

In light of the facts charged, each video recording on the facts charged does not constitute a dual expression, and (3) The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the defendant did not have any dual purpose related to the possession of video recording because it was merely a recommendation of film as a means to identify the North Korean residents' living conditions or the method of thinking to those interested in unification.

2. Determination on the assertion that the facts charged were not specified

A. The purport of the law, which stipulates the date, time, place, and method of a crime, to specify the facts charged, is to limit the scope of the trial to the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense of the defendant. Thus, the facts charged are sufficient if the facts constituting the elements of the crime are stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts in light of these elements, and the indictment is written.