All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to recognize the Defendant’s grounds for appeal as a pro rata expressive material under the National Security Act, the contents of the expressive material must be active and aggressive to threaten the nation’s existence and security and fundamental democratic order, which is a legal interest in the protection of the National Security Act. Whether such expressive material has an objection to the existence of such objection should be determined by taking into account not only the overall contents of the expressive material, but also all the circumstances such as the motive for the production thereof, the appearance of the expressive act itself, matters related

The crime of violation of the National Security Act (e.g., praiseing, etc.) due to the production and distribution possession of foreign expressive materials requires the establishment of the purpose of the e.g., the prosecutor must prove that the actor had the objective of e.g., the act. The fact that the actor was aware that the act was an e.g., e.,

must not be presumed.

In this case, when there is no direct evidence to prove that the act was the object of the act, the determination may be made by comprehensively taking into account the following indirect facts: (a) the Defendant’s career and status; (b) the background leading up to the act in connection with the act in question; (c) whether the Defendant joined the pro rata; and (d) whether the act in question was a dual organization to which the Defendant belongs; and (e) the actual objective and activity relevance between the dual organization to which the Defendant belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1189, Jul. 23, 2010). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court is sufficient to view each of the instant notices (the remaining notices excluding those listed in [Attachment Table 5.6] as indicated in the first instance judgment that threaten the nation’s existence and security democratic order; and (b) it is sufficient to view that each of the instant notices constitutes a dual expressive act under the National Security Act, which goes beyond the bounds of the freedom of expression.