All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant

A. In order to recognize the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles as a pro rata expressive material under the National Security Act, the content of the expressive material must be active and aggressive that threatens the security of the nation’s existence and the fundamental democratic order, which is the legal interest of the National Security Act. Whether the expressive material has an objection to the foregoing, not only the overall content of the expressive material, but also the overall circumstances, such as the form of the expressive act itself, matters related to the outside, and the situation at the time of the expressive act.

The crime of violation of the National Security Act (e.g., praiseing, etc.) due to the production and distribution possession of e.g., the purpose of the e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e.

must not be presumed.

In such cases, when there is no direct evidence to prove that the act was the object of the act, the court may determine the act by comprehensively taking into account the following indirect facts: (a) the Defendant’s career and status; (b) the background leading up to the act in connection with the act in question; (c) whether the Defendant joined the organization; and (d) whether the act in question was a dual organization to which the Defendant belongs; and (e) the actual objective and activity relevance between the dual organization to which the Defendant belongs (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1189, Jul. 23, 2010, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the court below held each of the instant notices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1189, Jul. 23, 2010) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1, 7, 9, and 19 annually No. 3, 4, and 500 annually, and each expression held by the Defendant is active and aggressive.