[1] Whether the promotion committee centered on workers is a dual organization under Article 7 of the National Security Act (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of the dual purpose under Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act

[3] The meaning of the dual purpose under Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act

[4] Whether the National Security Act is unconstitutional (negative)

[1] The committee for promotion of workers-centered advancement political party (afiniteism) refers to a political organization that claims the construction of a socialist state with workers-led socialism through the civil democracy revolution, which sets forth our society as a class society, and is impossible through an election under the anti-government organization, or the parliamentary council for the purpose of transformation. Thus, the purpose of transformation is to establish the civil power of the workers-oriented political party, to confiscate and nationalize the monopoly capital, to implement the planned economy, and to build the socialist state by realizing the unification between North and North Korea, and to withhold and exclude the violence revolution as a means of achieving that goal. As such, it is a political organization that claims the construction of a socialist state with the workers-led socialism state through the civil democracy revolution, with the aim of assisting in the activities of an anti-government organization, which is an anti-government organization, or promoting and inducing national defense.

[2] "Organization of an organization which aims to commit an act under Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act" means organization of an organization although it recognizes that an act intended to commit an act may objectively benefit an anti-government organization. In this case, it does not require an anti-government organization as well as there is a dolusent perception that it may benefit an anti-government organization.

[3] The purpose of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is not to make positive intent or final recognition of the act under Article 7 (1), (3), or (4) of the National Security Act, and it is sufficient to do so with doluence.

[4] The principle of international peace and peaceful unification declared by the Constitution in the preambles and Articles 4 and 5 is premised on the premise that it does not harm the provisional order of free democracy, which is the fundamental order of our free democracy. Thus, in a clear situation where North Korea still poses a threat to the basic order of our free democracy, the National Security Act’s purpose of securing the security, survival and freedom of the nation by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the national security cannot be deemed as a violation of the Constitution. In light of the purpose of the Act, if the National Security Act provisions are reasonably interpreted in light of the purpose of the Act, the concept of each constituent element of the crime under the National Security Act is ambiguous and broad, and thus, it cannot be deemed that

[1] Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act / [2] Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act / [3] Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act / [4] Article 7 of the National Security Act, Article 13 of the Constitution

[1] [4] Supreme Court Decision 97Do1515 delivered on July 25, 1997 (the same purport) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Do161 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1832) / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do203 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1466), Supreme Court Decision 91Do41 Delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2461), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1035 delivered on December 23, 196 (Gong197Sang, 559) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 90Do3939 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong197Do19394 delivered on September 13, 197) 94

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm General Law Office, Attorneys Yoon Jong-tae et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 97No408 delivered on May 13, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. 60 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and defense counsel are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the "Labor-Oriented Political Party Promotion Committee" (hereinafter referred to as the "Labor-Oriented Party Promotion Committee") as the basic principles of socialism; the society is defined as a rank society; and since it is impossible to change the society through an election or the National Assembly under the system of care of the Hadar, it is possible to do so; thus, the government must establish the civil power directed by workers-oriented political parties, confiscate and nationalize the monopoly capital; realize the unification with North Korea, and build the socialist state by realizing the unification with North Korea; and accordingly, it is reserved not to waive or exclude the violence revolution as a means of achieving the goal; therefore, it is a political organization that claims the construction of the socialist state led by workers-oriented by the labor class through the Civil Democratic Revolution, which is an anti-government organization, and therefore, it is justified in the judgment of the court below in violation of the rules of evidence or the records.

Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act provides that an organization whose purpose is to commit an act under paragraph (1) of the same Article refers to an organization that is objectively aware that an act intended to commit an act may be an interest of an anti-government organization, and it constitutes an organization. In this case, there is no need to achieve an anti-government organization and there is an dolusent perception that an act may be an interest of an anti-government organization (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1161, Jul. 24, 1990). Accordingly, according to the evidence of the first instance court's employment as cited by the court below, there is an incomplete perception that the defendant was at least the above-mentioned perception. Thus, there is no reason to discuss

2. The defendant's lectures and announced against the labor union members, Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the labor union members on the summary of the first instance court's decision, is an act that may endanger the nation's existence and security or democratic fundamental order by promoting and inciting the labor-grade strike and promoting the activities of North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and thereby endangering the nation's existence and security or democratic basic order. In light of the records, the court below's determination and determination are justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, each representation in the judgment of the court of first instance is an active and aggressive expression that threatens the nation's existence and security and democratic fundamental order, and it constitutes an active and aggressive expression that threatens the nation's security and democratic basic order, and the defendant is recognized as having acquired and possessed, under Article 7(5) and (1) of the National Security Act, that each representation in the judgment of the court of first instance is recognized as an active and aggressive expression, emphasizing that the whole representation in the judgment of the court of first instance is an improvement of bargaining or dialogue between labor and management, emphasizing the sponsing a sponant class strike, leading to a labor union activity as part of a political strike that calls for a labor union-grade strike, emphasizing the labor union activity as part of a labor union, setting up a plan and control economic system that leads to the spondembling of the sponty, leading to the sponing of the sponty and the abolition of the national security.

Examining the evidence of the first instance court admitted by the court below, the above measures of the court below are just, and the purpose of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is not necessary until the active desire or final recognition of the act under Paragraph (1), (3), or (4) is not required, and dolusent recognition is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1035 delivered on December 23, 1996), and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below.

4. The principle of international peace and peaceful unification declared by the Constitution under the Preamble and Articles 4 and 5 is premised on the premise that it does not harm the provisional order of free democracy. Thus, in a clear situation where North Korea still threatens the fundamental order of our free democracy, the National Security Act’s purpose of securing the security, survival and freedom of the people by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the national security cannot be deemed to be a violation of the Constitution. The National Security Act’s concept of each constituent element of crime under the National Security Act, which is reasonably interpreted in light of the purpose of the Act, cannot be deemed to violate the essential contents of the principle of no punishment without the law, because the concept of each constituent element of crime under the National Security Act, which is ambiguous and broad, is ambiguous and broad (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2673, Dec. 23, 1996). The National Security Act cannot be accepted.

5. According to the records, the indictment of this case against the defendant and the judgment of conviction of the court below cannot be deemed to violate the principle of equity under the Constitution in comparison with similar cases pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law such as incomplete hearing, omission of judgment, etc. in the judgment below.

6. In this case where two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant and two years of suspension of qualification are imposed, the argument that the amount of punishment is too inappropriate cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)