The judgment below

The conviction portion is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

. Prosecutors;

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge correct conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be rendered even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). (1) The first instance court of Article 2 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 380, supra) of the Second Instance (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 380, Oct. 21, 2006) has the intention to transfer the computer of this case to AC at the time the Defendant delivered it to A.

(2) The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, acquitted the prosecutor on the ground that it is difficult to recognize it, and rejected the grounds for appeal as to the prosecutor’s mistake of the facts.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of the lower court’s fact-finding, and it is nothing more than disputing the determination of the lower court’s choice of evidence and probative value, which belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, as alleged in

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, but does not indicate the grounds of appeal as to this part of the appeal and the reasons of appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. In order to be recognized as a pro rata expressive material under the National Security Act, the content of such expressive material must be active and aggressive to threaten the existence and security of the State and the fundamental democratic order, which is the legal interest of the National Security Act, and whether such expressive material has an objection to the foregoing.