beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant
A. (1) In order to be recognized as a pro rata expressive material under the National Security Act, the content of such expressive material must be active and aggressive to threaten the nation’s existence and security and fundamental democratic order, which is a legal interest in the protection of the National Security Act. Whether such expressive material has an objection to the existence of such objection ought to be determined by taking into account not only the overall content of the expressive material, but also all the circumstances, such as the motive for the production thereof, the form and appearance of the expressive act, and matters related
(2) Meanwhile, the crime under Article 7(5) of the National Security Act is the production, import, reproduction, possession, transportation, distribution, sale, or acquisition of documents, paintings, and other expressive materials for the purpose of committing the act of immigration under Articles 1, 3, and 4, and constitutes the so-called purpose crime. In order to recognize the establishment of a crime under Article 7(5) of the National Security Act, the prosecutor must prove that the prosecutor had the intention of committing the act of immigration against the person who committed the act.
In such cases, only the fact that an actor was aware that he/she was a pro rata and committed an act prescribed in paragraph 5 in relation thereto was for the purpose of committing an pro rata act.
Although it cannot be presumed that an actor has no direct evidence to prove the existence of the objective of the act, if there is no evidence to prove that the actor had the objective of the act, the determination of the actor’s purpose of the act can be made by comprehensively taking into account such indirect facts as the offender’s career and status, the background leading up to the act as prescribed in paragraph (5) in relation to the act in question, the actor’s personal nature, the existence of the act in question, and the relationship between the act in question and the act in question, in addition to the various circumstances described above, which are the equitable of the act in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1189, Jul. 23, 2010; 2010Do12836, Mar. 28, 2013).