The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant A, the list of offenses listed in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Nos. 1 to 31, .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The annexed list of crimes in the judgment of the first instance court against Defendant 1.

Nos. 1 to 31 and table of crime

The violation of the National Security Act and the list of crimes committed through the production and distribution of pro-enemy materials listed in Nos. 1 through 70

C. As to the violation of the National Security Act due to possession of the digital file form, there is a list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court of first instance as to the suspension of the execution in August and the first instance.

Nos. 32, 33 and list of crimes

The violation of the National Security Act due to the production and distribution of pro-enemy materials listed in Nos. 71 through 86 and the first instance court's decision 4.B.

(1) As to the violation of the National Security Act due to the possession of pro-enemy materials in the e-mail account as described in paragraph (1), the imprisonment of August is too unreasonable.

(b)the first instance sentence of the inspection is too uneasible;

2. The first instance court's ex officio determination shall be set out in the annexed list of crimes as indicated in its holding.

The crime of violating the National Security Act through the production and distribution of pro-enemy contents in No. 80, and the crime of violating the National Security Act through the distribution of pro-enemy contents in No. 81 was committed after the final and conclusive judgment of the first instance court.

However, the list of crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance is b.

The crimes in the part of December 3, 2013 and the part of May 5, 2014, among the crimes in the sequence 80, are identical to the contents of each produced and distributed pro-enemy, but the time of publication differs, the interval between each time is reached several months, and each other is used, etc. In light of the fact that each part of the crimes in the sequence 81 is identical to each other, they are separate crimes. Thus, each part of the crimes in the sequence 80, and each part of the crimes in the sequence 81 do not constitute one crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which determined punishment based on the application of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, is based on the premise that each part of the above 80 and 81 crimes are in the relation of a single crime, is in the relation of a crime.