A. Whether there is a need for awareness of the purpose of the immigration act under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act

(b) Contents of the criminal intent in producing and distributing the expressive materials under Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act;

(c) The purpose of legislation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and the criteria for determining assemblies and demonstrations that are likely to seriously cause social uncertainty;

A. The term “act of benefiting an anti-government organization” as provided by Article 7(1) of the National Security Act refers to an act of benefiting an anti-government organization if its contents can objectively become the benefit of an anti-government organization. If there is no dolusent perception that an act of benefiting an anti-government organization is an act of benefiting an anti-government organization, and if there is sufficient awareness that an act of benefiting an ordinary mental and considerable intelligence with it can be perceived as an act of benefiting an anti-government organization, and there is no need

B. Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act provides that "the possession, transportation, and distribution of expressions" refers to an act of possessing, transporting, distributing, or distributing expressions, which objectively and objectively recognized that such acts constitute expressions that may benefit, or benefit, an anti-government organization or its activities by concert with activities such as publicity, inciting, or inciting, etc., North Korean M&D groups, and that such acts should not be required to bring about the benefit of, or benefit to, anti-government organizations.

C. The Assembly and Demonstration Act is not only to protect peaceful assemblies and demonstrations in a democratic society, but also to maintain public peace and order. It constitutes an assembly which is likely to destroy public peace and order and cause social confusion, and it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the place, purpose, mode, contents, etc. of the assembly.

(a) Article 7(1) of the National Security Act; Article 7(5) of the National Security Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Do1499 delivered on September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1429 delivered on September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1785 delivered on October 14, 1986

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No7071 delivered on January 27, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

Out of detention days after the appeal, 30 days shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence; 15 days shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are also examined.

(i)with respect to violations of the rules of evidence;

Examining each evidence presented in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in comparison with the records, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the first instance court's admission of evidence.

The Defendants’ investigation record was prepared under the condition that the criminal suspect examination record was extended to the time of the investigation by the prosecution by the time of the investigation by the prosecution. Defendant 1 suffered from violence, intimidation, etc. at the time of the investigation by the prosecution, or Defendant 1, in particular, the female co-defendant 1, who is the co-defendant 1, was made under the condition that it is not inevitable to view the statement at the police due to the fact that it was made under the condition that the statement at the police cannot be forced. However, even if considering the records in detail, the court below’s decision that the records were admissible is justified.

(2) As to the misapprehension of legal principle:

(A) The "act of benefiting an anti-government organization" as provided in Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act refers to an act that constitutes an objective benefit of an anti-government organization, if it can be objectively recognized that the act constitutes an act of benefiting an anti-government organization, and there is sufficient awareness that the act of benefiting an anti-government organization may be recognized or beneficial to the act of benefiting an anti-government organization, and it does not require an intent to take advantage of an anti-government organization (refer to Supreme Court Decision 86Do1499 delivered on September 23, 1986) and Article 7 (5) of the same Act does not require an act of benefiting an anti-government organization (refer to Supreme Court Decision 86Do1499 delivered on September 23, 1986). It does not require that the act of benefiting an anti-government organization or its activities should be carried, transported, distributed, possessed, distributed, distributed, or demanded that the act be beneficial to an anti-government organization.

The judgment of the court below is justified in this case since the defendants' statements or opinions are recognized only to reflect them in the business of the defendants, satisfy the intellectual core point, or point out various contradictions in our society, and furthermore, it is not just in this case the defendants' acts of entering Mazkn's legal relics theory as a model of the Mazkn's Revolution, and the intellectual people are jointly and severally taking a political strike with workers and farmers with them, and ultimately, the free democracy and the state of socialism are included in the construction of socialist and communist country, and the academic ability and knowledge level of the defendants are included in the construction of Mazn's country. In light of the defendants' academic achievement and knowledge level, the defendants' acts are well-known and well-known, and the freedom of academic studies under the Constitution is recognized only for purely promoting the Mazn's right as above, and the acts of the defendants with printed materials or teaching materials under the National Security Act are not legitimate in the law of the court below's holding that the acts of the defendants are not legitimate in the law of the 2nd domestic translation.

(B) As to the so-called violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the Assembly and Demonstration Act has a fundamental spirit not only to protect peaceful assemblies and demonstrations in a democratic society, but also to maintain public safety and order. If public safety and order is destroyed and there is a concern to cause social confusion, it constitutes an assembly which might cause considerable social anxiety, and it shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the place, purpose, form, and content of the assembly (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1785, Oct. 14, 1986).

The court below decided that each fact of the defendants' decision in accordance with such opinion and judgment criteria constitutes an assembly which is likely to cause a significant social anxiety from an objective perspective, and therefore decided that the so-called is based on Article 3 (1) 4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out in the arguments.

(3) As to unreasonable sentencing:

In this case where imprisonment with labor for less than ten years is sentenced, the grounds for claiming unfair sentencing shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in each original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)