beta
Text
The judgment below
Section 1, paragraphs 1 to 14, 16, 17, and 26 of the attached facts charged in the judgment, b.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the part of Articles 15 and 18 through 25 as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment below (hereinafter “guilty facts”), in order to be recognized as pro-enemy contents under Article 7(5) of the National Security Act, the contents of the expressive materials shall be active and aggressive to threaten the existence and security of the nation, which is the legal interest protected by the National Security Act, and democratic fundamental order. Whether the expressive materials have such objection to the suitability shall be determined not only by the overall contents of the expressive materials, but also by taking into account all the circumstances such as the motive for the expressive act, the form and external relation with the expressive act, and the circumstances at the time of the expressive act, and the existence of the suitability shall be determined by objectively analyzing the entire contents through the context.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do7042 Decided August 20, 2009; 2009Do320 Decided October 13, 201, etc.). The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant acquired, produced, and distributed documents corresponding to pro-enemy pro-enemy contents for the purpose of pro-enemy acts.
As to this, the court below maintained the first instance court which acquitted each of the above facts on the grounds that each of the above contents cannot be seen as a active and aggressive act threatening the nation's existence security and free democratic fundamental order, by taking into account the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, including the overall purport and contents of the pertinent expressive materials, and the motive and background of preparation, etc.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the above judgment of the court below.