The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is clear that the Defendant’s comments posted on Blolobs are pro-enemy pro-enemy materials, and the Defendant’s comments that praise North Korea on the Internet cameras with various pro-North Korean orientations or support their arguments, and the Defendant took advantage of North Korea’s U.S. dollars or praises by participating in an unlawful assembly or assembly at least 50 times.

In full view of the contents of the Defendant’s writing, the Defendant’s power, and the details of the Defendant’s activities, etc., even though it is apparent that the Defendant distributed pro-enemy materials for the purpose of endangering the nation’s existence and security or democratic fundamental order, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the entire charges of this case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending

2. Determination

A. The crime of Article 7(5) of the National Security Act is a crime of producing, importing, copying, possessing, transporting, distributing, selling, or acquiring documents, paintings, or other expressive materials for the purpose of committing an act of immigration as provided in Article 1, 3, and 4, and is obviously a crime of interest.

The purpose of the crime in the objective crime is to be an excessive subjective illegal element for the establishment of crime, and it is required separately from the intention. Thus, even if an actor recognizes the existence of a expressive material and performs an act stipulated in paragraph 5, the elements of the crime are not satisfied unless the actor is recognized to do the act.

In addition, since the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the elements of a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove that the perpetrator had the intent to conduct a pro-enemy act, and the fact that the perpetrator knew that he/she was a pro-enemy pro-enemy act and committed an act stipulated in paragraph (5) cannot be presumed to have the intent

In such cases, if no direct evidence exists to prove that the act has the purpose of transfer.