A. Whether North Korea is not an anti-government organization under the National Security Act or its normative power has been lost due to the entry into force of "Agreement on Inter-Korean Settlement, Infertility, and Exchange and Cooperation (negative)" (negative);

B. Whether the act of communication between South and North Korea constitutes Article 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act and the application of the National Security Act shall be excluded (affirmative)

A. Even if the agreement between the Republic of Korea and North Korea on the reconciliation, infertility, and exchange and cooperation between the two Koreas entered into and entered into force, it cannot be deemed that North Korea is not an anti-government organization under the National Security Act, or the National Security Act has lost its normative power.

B. Article 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act provides that "this Act shall take precedence over other Acts to the extent that it is deemed justifiable with respect to activities aimed at the exchange and cooperation between South and North Korea, such as coming to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and from North Korea," so that the act of coming to and going to and going to South and North Korea falls under the above provision and thus excluded from the application of the National Security Act, the act of coming to and going to and going to

(a) Article 2 of the National Security Act; Article 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act; Articles 1 and 6 of the National Security Act;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Do1211 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992,2711). Supreme Court Decision 92Do148 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992,2605). Supreme Court Decision 90Do1613 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong190,2235).

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yu-seok et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No1542 delivered on June 12, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendant’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the Declaration of 7.7. and Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation, Korean nationals residing abroad who have a residence passport can visit North Korea or visit North Korea for cooperative projects or other purposes. However, such declaration, etc. cannot be viewed as a purport of allowing North Korea to visit North Korea for the purpose of anti-state activities threatening the existence and security of the Republic of Korea or democratic fundamental order. However, according to the contents of the written visit by the defendant, etc. employed by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, it is evident that the defendant was able to be punished under the National Security Act at the time of the crime of this case, and it is difficult to view that the defendant believed that his act of this case was not a crime.

The theory of the lawsuit argues that the non-unfair country was not the crime of the first North Korea of the above Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, the results of the fact-finding with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the first instance court are not mentioned as to whether the first North Korea of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in conflict with the law, and even if such comments were made, it cannot be said that the legitimacy of the believe that the North Korea of this case was legitimate even with the comment on the first North Korea of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the first instance. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

Even if the agreement between the Republic of Korea and North Korea on the reconciliation, infertility, and exchange and cooperation between the two Koreas entered into and entered into force, it is a view of party members that North Korea cannot be deemed to be an anti-government organization under the National Security Act, or the National Security Act cannot be deemed to have lost its normative power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1148, Jul. 24, 1992; 92Do1211, Aug. 14, 1992); therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3.

Article 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act provides that "this Act shall take precedence over other Acts to the extent that it is deemed justifiable with respect to activities aimed at the exchange and cooperation between South and North Korea, such as coming to and going to and going to and going to and going to and going to and from North Korea," so that the act of going to and going to and from South and North Korea falls under the above provision and is excluded from the application of the National Security Act, the act of going to and going to and from South and North

However, in light of the evidence of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below and the facts found in its holding, the purpose of the defendant's sending the non-indicted 1 to North Korea mainly is to protect the non-indicted 2 between North Korea to participate in the 13th World Youth Festival held in North Korea, and to assert that the application and punishment of the National Security Act for such women are unjustifiable. This purpose cannot be seen as the purpose of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation prescribed in the above provision, and there is no other data to find that such purpose exists. Thus, the above provision is not applicable to the defendant without examining whether the defendant's act falls under the scope that it is justified under the above provision.

Therefore, the part of the above provision's "to the extent deemed legitimate" is an unclear concept contrary to the principle of no punishment without law under the Constitution or on the premise that it violates the principle of no punishment without law under the Constitution, and there is no need to further decide whether to apply the above provision to the defendant.

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