All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

A. As to Defendant A and D’s act of concert with an anti-government organization, Defendant A and D’s act of concert with an anti-government organization under Article 7(1) of the National Security Act, and the so-called “crime of concert with an anti-government organization, etc.” refers to an act of concert with the activities of an anti-government organization by asserting that it is identical with, or complying with, the propaganda instigate and activities of an anti-government organization.

In addition, the interpretation principle that the National Security Act should be applied restricted to cases where there is an obvious risk of substantial harm to the security of the nation or democratic fundamental order, is also applied to the crime of acting in concert with activities of anti-government organizations.

Therefore, the act of assistance prohibited under Article 7(1) of the National Security Act should reach the extent to which he actively expresses his intention of responding to the activities of anti-government organizations, etc., to the extent that it can be evaluated as being praiseing, encouraging, and promoting the activities of anti-government organizations, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do758, Apr. 17, 2008). The lower court held that Defendant D’s production and performance of a large copy of “EM” and Defendant A’s F activities are obviously likely to pose substantial harm to the national existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.

The first instance judgment which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged was affirmed on the ground that it is difficult to view it as an active and aggressive act threatening or threatening this part of the charges.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the act of

(b).