A. The degree of specification of facts charged

B. The meaning and requirements of Article 20 of the Criminal Code

(c) The meaning of an assembly or demonstration which is likely to cause a significant social anxiety as provided in Article 3 (1) 4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and whether it is unconstitutional or not;

D. Whether the establishment of a crime of violation of Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act requires the awareness of the purpose of benefitting anti-government organizations

A. The facts charged are sufficient to specify by stating the date, time, place, and method of the prosecution to the extent that the facts underlying the prosecution can be distinguished from other facts.

B. The meaning of Article 20 of the Criminal Act is that, even if a certain act appears to constitute a constituent element of a crime formally, if it can be accepted in light of the ideology of the overall national order, it shall not be deemed as a justifiable act. In order to recognize that an act constitutes a justifiable act, the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected legal interest and the infringed legal interest, urgency, and supplement that there is no other means or method other than the act should be satisfied.

C. "An assembly or demonstration which is likely to cause considerable social uncertainty" as prohibited items under Article 3 (1) 4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to an assembly or demonstration which is highly probable to infringe on public peace and social stability objectively and objectively beyond the extent that can objectively and objectively be able to recognize social stability, and whether it constitutes such an assembly or demonstration can be determined objectively and reasonably by taking into account all circumstances, such as the place, purpose, mode, contents, etc. of the assembly or demonstration, and such provision does not infringe on the principle of legality and the fundamental contents of freedom of assembly and demonstration as stipulated by the Constitution.

D. "Organization of an organization which aims to commit an act under paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 7 of the National Security Act" means organization of an organization to commit such an act while recognizing that the member's intended act may objectively benefit of an anti-government organization. In this case, it does not require that the member's purpose is to benefit an anti-government organization.

Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 3(1)4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 20, 11, and 20 of the Criminal Act; Article 7(3) of the National Security Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 4294Do262 delivered on August 26, 1961, Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1547 delivered on September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Do456 delivered on May 27, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1547 delivered on September 23, 1986

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Han Man-man and Cho Jong-sung (Attorney Kim Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant 1)

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1134 delivered on July 14, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

Defendant 1, 2, and 3 shall be included in the imprisonment with prison labor declared by the court below for each of 35 days of pre-trial detention after the appeal.

1. We examine Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal.

A. As to Defendant 2’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

(1) Examining the evidence at the time of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below compared with the records, the facts of the crime can be acknowledged at the time of the original trial against the defendant, and considering the number of participants in each assembly and demonstration recognized by the facts of the crime, its character, the method, and the contents of relief, each of the above assemblies and demonstrations shall be deemed to be likely to cause a significant social anxiety, and the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence.

(2) The facts charged are sufficient to be specified by disclosing the date, time, place, method, etc. to the extent that the facts underlying the prosecution can be distinguished from other facts. In the indictment against Defendant 2 on the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the date, place, and method of the Defendant’s instigates the demonstration are specified in detail. However, since the Defendant stated “one person’s own name and one person’s own name in the process of relief” only, it cannot be said that the facts charged are not specified. Accordingly, the judgment below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged.

(3) Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that an act of a political party shall not be punishable, and even if a certain act seems formally to fall under the constituent elements of a crime, if it can be accepted in light of the overall ideology of the nation's law and order, it shall not be deemed a justifiable act, and it shall be recognized that an act constitutes a justifiable act. First, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, second, the reasonableness of the means or method, third, the formation of legal interests between the legal interests protected and the legal interests infringed, fourth, the formation of legal interests with the legal interests infringed, fourth, the requirement of supplement, etc., other than the act, should be met (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1547, Sep. 23, 196; 82Do3248, Mar. 8, 1983, etc.).

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, each so-called of the defendant's ruling is clear that it does not meet all the requirements set forth above as it deviates from the national law and order, and therefore it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act. Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law as to a justifiable act.

(4) Article 3 (1) 4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that "any assembly or demonstration that is likely to cause social uncertainty" means an assembly or demonstration that is highly likely to infringe on public peace and social stability objectively and objectively beyond the extent that can be objectively and socially acceptable by social norms. Whether it falls under this, an objective and reasonable judgment can be made by taking into account all the circumstances such as the place, purpose, mode, contents, etc. of the assembly or demonstration. The above legal provision pointing out the arguments can be arbitrarily interpreted and applied with the ambiguous interpretation standard, so it is not acceptable to accept the theory of unconstitutionality that it infringes on the essential contents of the freedom of assembly or demonstration as provided by the Constitution.

B. As to the violation of the National Security Act against Defendant 2 and 3:

(1) In comparison with the records at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the facts constituting an offense can be acknowledged at the time of original adjudication against the defendants, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence or by misunderstanding facts against the rules of

(2) "Organization of an organization which aims to commit an act under Article 7 (3) and (2) of the National Security Act" means that an organization is formed with intent to commit an act that may objectively benefit of an anti-national organization, and in such a case, it does not require any awareness for the purpose of benefiting anti-national organization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do456, May 27, 1986). According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendants are focused on domestic politics, society, economic, and economic contradictions, and the fact that the Korea-U.S. Constitution focuses on unfair and subordinate relations in terms of the nation's politics, economy, and military affairs, and that the members of the Korea-U.S. Anti-National Assembly were the core force, and that the members of the Korea-U.S. Assembly were the non-party to political, economic, social, and culturally outside Korea, and that the so-called Anti-U.S. Anti-U.m. Anti-U.m. government and anti-U. Constitution should be considered.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendants, as part of their propaganda activities for the unification of South and North Korea, have been able to keep North Korea between the government and the people, and in particular, since the Defendants, who received higher education, did not know that they would have been able to engage in the anti-government activities while falsely publicizing our political, social, and economic system as a part of the propaganda activities for the unification of North Korea, and as a part of our colonialism, it belongs to the publicly known fact that the Defendants were constantly engaging in the anti-government activities while engaging in the anti-government activities, it cannot be said that they did not know that they followed the above anti-government activities. Accordingly, the Defendants’ judgment did not recognize that they would act in concert with the anti-government activities for the anti-government activities for the unification of North Korea, and that the objective of the anti-government activities for the anti-government activities for the anti-government activities for the unification of North Korea is all objective, and thus, the Defendants’ act of anti-government and anti-government activities for the purposes of forming the anti-government activities for the unification of North Korea as part of the anti-government activities.

2. According to the statement of the appellate brief submitted by the Defendants, the grounds alleged by the Defendants cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the arguments are groundless.

3. As above, the Defendants’ appeals are without merit, and they are dismissed. Defendant 1, 2, and 3 are to be included in the imprisonment with prison labor for each of the days pending trial after the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)