Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's penal provision of the National Security Act is against the Constitution, and North Korea does not constitute anti-government organizations.

In addition, the defendant's act does not constitute a dual act to the extent that the defendant is punished (the mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles).

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. Although North Korea is a partner of dialogue and cooperation for peaceful unification of South and North Korea, North Korea still has the character of anti-government organization that is bound to wear our liberal democracy system while maintaining the timely unification route despite changes in the relationship between South and North Korea, and therefore, it is established by the Supreme Court that the normative power of the National Security Act that regulates anti-government organizations is valid.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do1189, Jul. 23, 2010). Therefore, North Korea’s anti-government organization was already extinguished.

The defendant's assertion that the National Security Act is in violation of the Constitution is not accepted.

B. In order to recognize the assertion that the expressive materials are not, or are not, pro-enemy contents under the National Security Act, the contents of the expressive materials must be active and aggressive to threaten the nation’s existence and security and the free democratic fundamental order, which are protected by the law of the National Security Act. Whether the expressive materials have an objection to the existence or absence of such objection should be determined by taking into account not only the overall contents of the expressive materials, but also all the circumstances such as the motive for the production thereof, the form and appearance of

In addition, if there is no direct evidence to prove that the intent of the act is the object of the act, it shall be added to the various circumstances in which the expression is expressed of the nature of the act.