logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.05.29 2015노85
국가보안법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) of the defendant's act in the facts charged is clearly dangerous to the national existence and security or democratic basic order, and the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case even though the content of the expression is sufficiently recognized, and there is an error of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

2. Determination

A. Article 7 of the National Security Act applies only to cases where the act is clearly dangerous that may harm the national existence and security or democratic fundamental order (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2003HunBa85, Aug. 26, 2004). Here, the meaning of endangering the existence and security of the State refers to threatening the independence of the Republic of Korea, impairing the functions of the Constitution and laws, and destroying and breaking the constitutional body, and making the external hostile attack. The meaning of endangering the fundamental order of free democracy is all violent rule and arbitrary control, i.e., preventing classic rule and arbitrary control, excluding classic self-government or classic self-government of the government organization, and making it difficult to maintain the rule of law based on the basic principle of free equality, and specifically, to destroy the internal system of our country, such as respect for fundamental human rights, separation of powers, parliamentary system, multiple political party system, election system, private property, and economic order and judicial system.

(2) Article 7(1) of the National Security Act provides that “The National Security Act shall apply to a document, picture, or other expressive material for the purpose of committing an act of immigration as prescribed by Article 7(1) and (3) of the same Act” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2209, Sept. 26, 2003).”

The purpose in the objective crime is to prevent the crime from being committed in addition to intentionally subjective illegal factors.

arrow