The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is a so-called crime of producing, importing, copying, possessing, transporting, distributing, selling, or acquiring documents, paintings, or other expressive materials for the purpose of committing the act of immigration under paragraph (1), (3), or (4).

The purpose of the objective crime is to establish an excessive illegal element for the establishment of a crime, and it is separately required other than the intention. Thus, even if an actor recognized the existence of an expression and committed an act under paragraph (5), the elements of the crime are not satisfied unless the purpose of the act is recognized.

In addition, since the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the elements of a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove that the perpetrator had the intent to conduct a pro-enemy act. The fact that the perpetrator knowingly committed an act under paragraph (5) shall not be presumed to have the intent to conduct a pro-enemy act.

In this case, if there is no direct evidence to prove that the accused has the objective of a pro-enemy act, the determination may be made by comprehensively taking into account the indirect facts, such as the Defendant’s career and status, and the background leading the Defendant to commit the act under paragraph (5) in connection with pro-enemy materials, in addition to various circumstances

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do1189 Decided July 23, 2010). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant had an intent to commit an act under Article 7(1) of the National Security Act at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

Examining the records in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the purpose of foreign acts under Article 7(5) of the National Security

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.