A. Whether Article 7(1) and Article 22 subparag. 3 of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act infringe on the essence of freedom of expression under the Constitution and violate the principle of prohibition of excessive legislation and the principle of no punishment without law

(b) Whether the internal publications issued for only members of the voluntary organization are excluded from the periodicals subject to registration;

(c) The case holding that the discretionary organization in the trade union of a bank is a publication subject to registration in light of the period of publication, frequency, number of copies published and distributed by it against all union members of the bank;

D. Whether there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendants, who published the periodicals referred to in 03, did not have any provision on compulsory registration of the periodicals and did not raise any problem even after a long period of time has passed since the publication was interrupted

A. The provisions of Articles 7(1) and 22 subparag. 3 of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act, unless interpreting that the facilities in question are owned by themselves under Article 6(3)1 and 22(3)2 of the same Act, cannot be deemed as essentially infringing on the freedom of speech and press, or as violating the principle of no punishment without the law, due to excessive legislation or too broad and broad means compared to the purpose.

B. Even if a voluntary organization issues internal publications only against its members, it may not be excluded from the registration regardless of the exception of the proviso of Article 7(1) of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act, solely on the ground that such publications are internal publications, the contents of which are published in large quantities, such as company’s “private news” or “school sites,” are diverse, and are likely to spread to the general public.

(c) The case holding that if the voluntary organization in the trade union of a bank has published and distributed a book of about 1,500 copies at a time every 16 months against all union members of the bank, which are not its members, it is merely limited to the subject of distribution, and it cannot be viewed as an internal publication, and it cannot be viewed as a publication excluded from the subject of registration under the same Act in light of the period of publication, the number of publication, and the number of publication copies, etc.

D. The mere fact that the defendants, without registering the periodicals under 03's "03", did not know that there was a statutory provision compelling the registration of the periodicals, and that there was no problem with the suspension of the publication and the long time of the publication, there was no justifiable reason for the defendants to believe that the act does not constitute a crime.

(a)(c)Article 7(1), Article 22(3)(a) of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act, Article 6(3)(a) of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act, Articles 12(1), 21, and 37(2)(d) of the Constitution; Article 13 of the Criminal Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do332 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1104) Decision 90Hun-Ga23 delivered on June 26, 1992 (No. 12183 delivered on June 26, 199) (No. 83Do3206 delivered on February 14, 1984 (Gong1984,551)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants Law Firm citizen General Law Office, Attorneys Yoon Jong-tae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 93No3160, 4549 delivered on October 26, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The provisions of Articles 7(1) and 22 subparag. 3 of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act shall not be deemed to be a violation of the principle of no punishment without the law because the means of press and publication are essentially infringed, or excessively excessive legislation or too broad and broad compared to the purpose, unless the provisions of Article 6(3)1 and 22 subparag. 3 of the same Act are interpreted to be limited to the possession of the relevant facilities under Article 6(3)2 of the same Act. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

Even if a voluntary organization issues an internal publication against its members only, it can not be excluded from the registration regardless of the exception of the proviso of Article 7(1) of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act, just because it is an internal publication because it has a large volume of publications, such as company's news or university's "private place of publication", and there is a high possibility of spreading them to the general public. In light of the records, it can be known that the "gradation" of this case is published and distributed in about 1500 at least once every 16 months against union members of the above bank, a voluntary organization within the Seoul Trust Bank's labor research society, who is not its members, for about 16 months. Thus, it is only limited to the object to be distributed, and it can not be viewed as an internal publication, and it can not be viewed as a publication excluded from the registration of the above law. Furthermore, in light of the period and frequency of publication and number of copies, the defendants' acts of compelling the above registration of the periodicals do not seem to have any justifiable reason for the above.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)