1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant of the claim on August 27, 2014.

1. The summary of the facts constituting the crime was known to the effect that it might endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order, and the defendant, upon receiving instructions from B from an anti-government organization on September 24, 2002, reported to B “the trend of democratic labor party related to the opposite ship” (espionage), who was a state secret, collected by B (convening and communications) around September 2002, to B (in order to escape from the country to receive an order from a member of an anti-government organization or to consult on an accomplishment of its purpose (esp). The defendant assisted C to escape again into the Republic of Korea for the purpose of fulfilling its purpose (esption). On June 24, 2006, the defendant sent the Incheon Airport from the Republic of Korea to the North border, received an order from two North Korean official officers from North Korea on June 24, 2006, and then joined the Incheon Airport as a member or an anti-government organization for the purpose of escape (sponsing and gathering).

Articles 8(1) and 4(1)2(b) and 6(2) of the National Security Act of the same Act

A. On August 16, 2007, the Seoul High Court sentenced 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor and 4 years of suspension of qualification for the crime of violating the National Security Act (espionage, lock-in, escape, meeting, communications, etc.) at the Seoul High Court, and the said sentence became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the appeal, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on October 23, 2010 while the said sentence was serving in Daegu Prison. The main points of the crime and applicable provisions of the Act are as follows.

B. After the release of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff received a security surveillance disposition from the Defendant on November 8, 2012, and the prosecutor thereafter requested the Defendant to renew the period of security surveillance disposition against the Plaintiff on August 26, 2014. The Defendant did not oppose the crime of violation of the National Security Act against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2014 following the resolution of the Security Surveillance Disposition Review Committee.