All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant (the factual errors and the misapprehension of legal principles)'s act of care in the court as "the People's Republic of Korea's Republic of Korea" and "the Republic of Korea Joseon People's Republic of Korea" does not constitute an act of endangering the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order for the following reasons, and even though it does not constitute a crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

1. North Korea is not an anti-government organization but a legitimate country with sovereignty, people, territory, etc., and South and North Korea;

7.4. Joint Names of South and North Korea, Basic Agreements between South and North Korea;

6. 15. The conclusion or confirmation of the Joint Declaration between South and North Korea is that the South Korean government itself recognizes the nationality of North Korea.

2) The subject ideology of North Korea is not Kim Il-sung ideology that contains value, such as humanism, peacefulism, equality, and respect for life, but is not Kim Il-sung ideology. It cannot be deemed that it is a transformation of the legal theory of relicism of Mars- Lerainism. 3) North Korea merely aims at peaceful and phased unification while respecting the socialist system of South Korea as a socialist state, and is not aimed at hostile unification, and North Korea rather threatens North Korea through any instrument and military operations that the U.S. system and South Korea have.

4) Since the concept of “free democratic basic order” is unclear in itself, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act may endanger the existence and security of the State and the democratic basic order. 5) Even though the Defendant’s act did not cause any specific damage, punishing him as a crime of violation of the National Security Act (e.g., aiding, etc.) goes against the excessive prohibition principle as prescribed by the Constitution and laws

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too excessive.