(a) Anti-government organizations and North Korea under the National Security Act;

(b) Freedom of new consciousness, civilism, monopolyism, capitalism, and science;

(c) The aptitude of the theory of anti-government, anti-government, and democratic revolution;

D. Whether the act of producing and distributing pro-enemy contents constitutes a pro-enemy pro-enemy act of making the Plaintiff’s pro-enemy content as a book to be transferred to the publishing company and producing and selling it as a book

(e) Punishment of acts of assistance and freedom of ideas in anti-government, anti-government, public democracy revolution theory;

(f) Principles for determining whether representations are of merit;

G. Possession of pro-enemy contents and fulfillment of pro-enemy contents requirements

(h) Possession of pro-enemy materials and presumption of pro-enemy materials for which people need to learn academic research knowledge;

A. In a clear situation where North Korea is a threat to our liberal democratic basic order, on the ground that South Korea and North Korea have joined the same as the United Nations, or signed and sealed an agreement on the settlement, settlement, and exchange and cooperation between South and North Korea, it cannot be said that North Korea is not an anti-government organization under the National Security Act.

B. The understanding of the Korean society as a new public-private society and a single-private society as a result of academic research. Thus, even if the method of analysis is based on Madiceism, it is within the scope of freedom of learning guaranteed by the Constitution, and it cannot be deemed that it violates the National Security Act.

C. The anti-government democratic revolution theory refers to the political behavior that must change the political economic system of the Korean society actively, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it belongs to the academic area. It is necessary to establish the government of the Union of North Korea, which is the leading power of workers, and to nationalize the monopoly capital, etc., and it is ultimately a period leading to socialism, which is ultimately the abolition of private property and the socialism system, which is ultimately a de facto and aggressive expression with the free democratic fundamental order under the Constitution of Korea, which is a active and aggressive expression that threatens it, and thus goes beyond the limit of freedom of expression. Although it is somewhat different from North Korea’s assertion in the method leading to the socialism system, it is necessary to construct the socialism system, as alleged by the North Korea, which is an anti-government organization.

D. In a case where the Defendant prepared the Plaintiff as jointly with another person, and prepared the Plaintiff, while being aware of the content, and had the Plaintiff produce and sell it as a book to the publishing company, the Defendant did not have any problem in the portion actually written by the Defendant, and even if the research institute was not prosecuted as an anti-government organization or a pro-enemy organization, the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of producing and distributing pro-enemy contents under Article 7(5) and (1) of the former National Security Act, and only the producer and publishing company actually produced and distributed the book.

E. It cannot be said that it infringes on the freedom of ideas since it is intended to protect the security, existence and free democracy basic order of the Republic of Korea to punish an act of consenting to the purport of documents that contain the content of claiming the anti-government-government-government-government democratic revolution theory as an anti-government-government organization under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act.

F. Whether a certain representation has an aptitude is a matter of the nature to be determined by the court by free evaluation in accordance with the empirical and logical rules.

(g) If, while recognizing that the contents of the expressive material contain aptitude, the expressive material is presumed to have dolusent perception that it would be an act of transfer to the person who committed the act, the elements of the crime of violating Article 7(5) of the former National Security Act are satisfied, and the requirements of the purpose, which is an excessive subjective illegal element, are satisfied, unless the material presented that the act did not have any dual purpose such as academic research, etc., appeared.

H. Generally, it is reasonable to presume that there was a dual purpose in a case where a person who is engaged in a study or knowledge carries books or materials related to his/her major field. However, even if there was any content containing the aptitude, it is reasonable to presume that he/she had possession for academic research or knowledge or to reverse the presumption of a dual purpose. However, even if such person also engages in a pro-enemy act, such as committing a violation of the National Security Act, he/she cannot be deemed to have carried pro-enemy contents for academic research. In such a case, the pro-enemy contents held by him/her are not related to any other violation of the National Security Act and are only related to his/her major academic field, or are deemed necessary for research on that field. In such a case, it can be presumed that there was no dual purpose or presumed that there was no different purpose.

A. Article 2(1)(b) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373, May 31, 1991); Article 7(5)(b) of the same Act. Article 22(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is Article 30(f) of the Criminal Act. (h) Articles 7(1) and 7(5) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373, May 31, 1991). Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Do1148 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2605) 92Do1211 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2711), and 94Do930 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1871) E.g. (e) Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do2033 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong192, 1466) 91Do1090 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong191, 2186) 9Do141 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong191, 192, 194Do29319 delivered on July 14, 192)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Ahn Young-do

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No851 delivered on June 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined.

Concerning the sixth Ground for Appeal

In a situation where it is obvious that North Korea is threatening to the fundamental order of our free democracy, it is the opinion of the party members that North Korea cannot be viewed as an anti-government organization under the National Security Act on the ground that South and North Korea joined the same organization as the United Nations, or signed and sealed the agreement on the settlement, settlement, and exchange and cooperation between South and North Korea, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1148, Jul. 24, 1992; 92Do1211, Aug. 14, 192).

Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

On the first to fifth grounds

1. According to the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

2. The measures of "the theory, history, and reality of socialism" in the statement of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, which goes beyond a simple socialism, includes the assertion that the Korean society should change the Korean society by understanding it as the so-called new civil society as the country-oriented capital-based society and by causing the anti-government-oriented democracy revolution based on it. As such, the understanding of the Korean society as the new civilism-based society as the result of academic research, even though the method of analysis falls within the category of learning guaranteed by the Constitution, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the National Security Act.

3. However, the anti-government democracy revolution theory asserted in the above book is a political behavior that requires the change of the political economic system of the Korean society actively, and thus it cannot be deemed that it belongs to the academic domain. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the content of the theory belongs to the academic domain. Moreover, it is necessary to establish the government of the Civil Union and nationalization of monopoly capital, etc. with the labor class, which is the leading power of workers, and it is ultimately necessary to complete a socialist system that covers the abolition of private property and the abolition of the socialism, which ultimately leads to the expiration of the period leading to the socialism. Thus, it cannot be said to go beyond the limit of the freedom of expression because it is an active and aggressive expression that threatens without being melting with the fundamental order of free democracy under our Constitution, and even though this is somewhat different from North Korea’s assertion in the method leading to the socialism system, even if there is a little difference between North Korea and North Korea’s assertion, it should be seen that it should be in accordance with the assertion of the anti-government organization, North Korea.

However, according to the court below's determination, the defendant prepared the plaintiff jointly with other persons to prepare the above books, and prepared and sold them to the publishing company with the plaintiff's knowledge of their contents. Thus, the defendant's production and sale of the above books in the form of a book, although recognizing that it would benefit anti-government organizations as above, it should be viewed that the defendant produced each of the above expressions, and the defendant did not have any problem in the actually written part, and even if the above books were not prosecuted as an anti-government organization or a pro-government organization, the above so-called "the defendant's production and distribution of pro-enemy materials under Article 7 (5) and (1) of the National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191) before the amendment, even if the above books were not prosecuted as an anti-government organization or a pro-government organization, the defendant's production and sale of the above books cannot be viewed as a direct crime of distribution.

4. In addition, documents, such as the "Plan for the reorganization of the research institute" or "report on the results of the research institute interview and the opinion of the Steering Committee" cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, include the contents of assertion of anti-government-government-government democracy theory, and therefore, the defendant's consent to the purport of the above documents constitutes Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act before and after the amendment, since it is in harmony with the assertion of North Korea,

In addition, punishing the above acts of the defendant in violation of the National Security Act is aimed at protecting the safety and existence of the Republic of Korea and democratic fundamental order, and it cannot be said that it infringes on the freedom of thought, and the indictment of the defendant is not an abuse of the right of prosecution.

5. In addition, according to the records, since the defendant also recognized the facts that he did the above acts in the prosecutor's office and the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of the court of first instance cited the defendant's statement as evidence of guilt. Whether a certain expression has an objection to a free evaluation in accordance with the empirical rules and logical rules, and the court of first instance maintained by the court below also judged that the above "socialism theory, history, and reality" as well as the above purport of the judgment of the court of first instance is appropriate. Thus, it cannot be said that the court of first instance erred in rejecting the testimony and appraisal statement of the witness who has no objection to it, and the testimony and appraisal statement that there is an objection to it, and it cannot be said that there were errors in the misapprehension of the limits of free evaluation, or that there were no errors in the law of free evaluation. The Seoul Social Science Research Research Institute was not prosecuted as an anti-government organization or a dual organization, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence for conviction of documents related to its activities.

6. According to the records, all the expressions, "the characteristic of Korean society and workers' rank transformation movement," "the worker's rank," "the worker's rank," and "the study of the South Korean society and the socialist theory," that the defendant's possession should be caused by the anti-government, anti-government, democratic revolution, or the socialist revolution," and they constitute pro-enemy contents. Since there are no materials to be deemed that the defendant's possession was caused by academic research, profit-making, or anti-government or anti-government spirit, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of pro-enemy contents under the National Security Act, in maintaining the first instance court's decision that held that the defendant's possession of the above expressive materials constitutes Article 7 (5) and (1) of the National Security Act before the amendment.

The crime of violation of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act prior to the amendment requires the purpose of committing the act under paragraphs (1) through (4) of the same Article. However, if the expressive materials are possessed with awareness that the contents of the expressive materials contain aptitude, it shall be presumed that the act would be a dual act, and the elements of the above Article are satisfied, and unless the materials show that there was no dual act such as academic research, etc., they meet the requirements for the purpose of excessive subjective illegal act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2033, Mar. 31, 1992).

Therefore, in general, it is the principle to presume that there was a dual purpose in the case of possession of pro-enemy materials with knowledge of their aptitude. However, in the case of possession of books or materials related to the major field by those who need academic studies or knowledge, even though the contents containing aptitude were included, it is reasonable to presume that they were possessed for academic research or knowledge acquisition, or to reverse the presumption of dual purpose.

However, even if such a person commits a pro-enemy act such as committing another act in violation of the National Security Act, he/she cannot be deemed to have possessed for academic research only. In such a case, it shall be presumed that pro-enemy act held by him/her is not related to the act of violation of the National Security Act committed by him/her, and only if it is deemed necessary for research on his/her major field or it is related only to the other act of violation of the National Security Act committed by him/her, it shall be presumed that

However, according to the records, although the defendant is a person who is in the process of economic doctoral degree at the Seoul University graduate school, the defendant's possession does not correspond to the facts of violation of the National Security Act committed by him/her, nor is he/she is related to the academic studies of him/her or possessed in the necessity of research on the field. Thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant did not have any intention.

7. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below violates the rules of evidence, the rules of law of indirect and indirect crimes, or the principles of personal responsibility as to the crime subject to the principle of no punishment without the law, and the misapprehension of the legal principles of the National Security Act (which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles of the National Security Act), and the arguments of the lawsuit that are alleged to be erroneous in infringing on the constitutional provisions or the equality provisions guaranteeing the freedom of thought and science

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)