The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The court below's decision that held that Co-Defendant A had the above "explication," "explication," "explication," and "explication," and "explication," under Article 6 of the National Security Act, could not be viewed as "explication," or "explication," while recognizing the above "explication," "explication," "explication," and "explication," in the part of the criminal facts theory, the court below judged that the above "explication

B. A and the defendant did not have any perception that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

C. The lower court determined that the National Security Act applies to A’s act without holding any judgment as to the legal gap between the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act and the National Security Act, inasmuch as the act of a North Korean resident who escaped from North Korea to escape from North Korea to North Korea ultimately contributes to the peaceful unification between South and North Korea, and can be evaluated as having been for the purpose of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation. Accordingly, the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act (hereinafter “Inter-Korean Exchange Act”) shall apply to this case, and in such a case, the National Security Act shall not be applied as a matter of course.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as shown in the annexed sheet.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty by comprehensively taking account of the lower court’s judgment’s co-defendant A, C’s legal statement, judgment on the above A, and Defendant B.

C. Article 9(2) of the National Security Act provides that a person who provides convenience while knowing that he/she commits or attempts to commit a crime under Articles 3 through 8 of the same Act shall be punished.