A. Whether the National Security Act contradicts the principle of peaceful unification under the Constitution

B. Whether the National Security Act violates the principle of no punishment without the law

C. Whether the same law is unconstitutional

D. Requirements for pro-enemy contents under Article 7 (5) of the same Act

(e) Whether there is a publicly known fact that North Korea is developing various tactical activities, such as propaganda and inciting that South Korea should return to the South Korean regime, in order to set the basic goal of the unification of South Korea into the Republic of Korea and achieve this goal;

(f) Whether North Korea can be deemed not an anti-government organization under the National Security Act on the ground that the President suggested a normal conference and made a declaration of open policies related to North Korea, and the two Koreas joined the United Nations at the same time, and the "Agreement on the Non-Reconciliation and Exchange and Cooperation between South and North Korea" entered into force

(g) The case holding that an act of preparing and distributing printed articles consistent with the contents of North Korea's propaganda instigate constitutes an offense of concert with an anti-government organization;

(h) Cases that the Federation of Young Korean Uniforms, the Korean Youths, and the Korean Youths Association falls under the dual organizations under the same Act;

A. The principle of international peace and peaceful unification declared by the Constitution in Articles 4 and 5 is premised on the fact that it does not harm the peace and peaceful unification basic order of the Republic of Korea, which is the fundamental order of free democracy. As such, in light of the military power of North Korea, North Korea does not seem to have given up the waiver of the fundamental system of our society with North Korea, and it is obvious that there is a threat to our free democratic basic order, the National Security Act, which aims to secure the national security and the survival and freedom of the people by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the national security, cannot be said to be a law contrary to the principle of peaceful unification.

B. As long as the National Security Act applies in cases where an act under the same Act threatens to endanger the existence and security of the State or threatens to endanger the liberal democratic fundamental order, it shall not be deemed as an invalidation law in violation of the principle of no punishment without prison labor under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

C. The freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, such as the press and publication, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of residence and association, freedom of communication, and freedom of thought, etc. are not unlimited, but can be restricted to the extent that it does not infringe on the essential contents of the freedom and right, if necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare under Article 37(2) of the Constitution. Thus, the legislative purpose and application of the National Security Act are to limit it to the extent that it does not infringe on the essential contents of the freedom and right. Thus, the same law is not deemed unconstitutional.

(d) If any representation contains active and aggressive contents threatening the security of Korea and the free democracy system, such representation shall be deemed to exceed the bounds of the freedom of expression, and shall be deemed to be a equitable representation as set forth in Article 7(5) of the same Act.

E. North Korea established the unification of the Republic of Korea as the basic goal, and defined the history of the transition legal system as the monetization of the class of control rank for the class of the history of the Republic of Korea in the historical view of the history of the transition legal system, and the South Korea is a colonial citizen belonging to the anti-stateism and sells South Korea's anti-dynamic shock regime as an anti-dynamic shock regime, and the various levels of class equal to South Korea's workers, farmers as the main force of the revolution, knowledge, youth, students, urban citizens, etc. as an assistant group in forming the anti-state unification cable, forming the anti-government unification cable, and establishing all means such as violence, non-discrimination, law, anti-conforming law, and non-conforming law, and establishing the anti-stateism, military shock Germany and market capital as a means of publicity and unification, and establishing the so-called "non-public peace and anti-public organization belonging to the Republic of Korea National Security Act" and establishing the anti-public organization and anti-public organization of South Korea as a hub of anti-public peace and anti-public organization.

F. In a situation where it is obvious that North Korea is a threat to our liberal democratic basic order, the President, using the name of the North Korean authority at his/her appointment, proposed a normal conference to discuss the reconciliation, cooperation, and unification between South and North Korea Koreans, and there was a declaration of open policies related to North Korea, such as the name of the 7/4 South and North Korea Joint Name and the 7/7 Declaration of the former President, etc., of the Republic of Korea, and the two Korea joined the United Nations at the same time, and thus North Korea joined the United Nations at the same time, and there is a reason that North Korea was approved as a single sovereign state in the international community, or that the said agreement entered into force upon signing the agreement on inter-Korean reconciliation, aggression and exchange and cooperation.

(g) The case holding that an act of preparing and distributing printed articles consistent with the North Korea's propaganda instigate constitutes an offense of concert with an anti-government organization;

(h) The case holding that the total of early unification offenders, the Korean People's Youths' training constitutes a dual organization under the same law.

A.B. Article 1(a) of the National Security Act; Article 4 and Article 5(b) of the Constitution; Article 12(c) of the Constitution; Article 37(d) of the Constitution; Article 7(e) of the National Security Act; Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 2 of the National Security Act

A. B. (f) Supreme Court Decision 92Do1211 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992,271). Supreme Court Decision 91Do2341 delivered on November 22, 1991 (Gong1992,358). Supreme Court Decision 92Do1249 delivered on August 18, 1992 (Gong1992,279 delivered on September 25, 1999). Supreme Court Decision 90Do1451 Delivered on September 29, 196 (Gong1990,224 delivered on September 25, 1990), 90Do1613 delivered on September 29, 192 (Gong1990,2235 delivered on September 24, 1992).

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 93No694 delivered on June 3, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

65 days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. The principle of international peace and peaceful unification declared in Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution is premised on the fact that it does not harm the whole of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which is the fundamental order of free democracy. Thus, in a clear situation where North Korea does not seem to have renounced the fundamental system of our society with a strong military force and it threatens our society, it cannot be deemed that the National Security Act for the purpose of securing the national security and the survival and freedom of people by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the national security (Article 1(1) of the National Security Act) is inconsistent with the principles of peaceful unification (Article 90Do1518, Sept. 14, 190; Article 90Do1451, Sept. 25, 200; Article 90Do1451, Apr. 19, 200; Article 19 of the National Security Act does not violate the Constitution's freedom of expression and fundamental order of free assembly within the limit of 90Do1941, Feb. 19, 1997.

In addition, if any expressive material contains active and aggressive contents threatening the safety of the Republic of Korea and the free democracy system, such expressive material is beyond the limit of freedom of expression and ought to be deemed to be an aggressive expressive material under Article 7(5) of the National Security Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do203, Mar. 31, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Do2221, Jun. 9, 192; Supreme Court Decision 92Do158, Sept. 22, 1992; 92Do2583, Feb. 9, 1993).

Therefore, the first argument in this different view is without merit.

2. South and North Korea established the unification of South and North Korea as its basic goal, and defined the history of South and North Korea as the 19-class war at the 10th rank of South and North Korea, and North Korea as the 19-2nd class war to achieve the objectives of the South and North Korean Democratic Revolution, and the 19-2nd class of South and North Korean government as the 19-2nd class war and the 19-2nd of the 19-2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 19th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 19th of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 19th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the Korea.

In addition, it cannot be said that the Defendant, who received higher education at a university, was unaware of the fact that he was an anti-government organization organized for the purpose of national change and referred to the government of North Korea as well as North Korea's strategy for the unification in South and North Korea and the preceding mentioned mentioned in North Korea and its propagation and conspiracy for this purpose.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the National Security Act and the rules of evidence.

3. 반국가단체활동동조죄의 점에 대하여, 원심이 적법히 확정한 바와 같이 피고인이 제1심판시 제1의 가항에 있어서의 판시 유인물에 한미관계를 정치적, 경제적 예속관계로, 현정권을 분열주의자로 단정짓고 반미와 정권타도를 주창하며 미군철수, 국가보안법철폐, 팀스피리트훈련의 영구폐기, 평화협정체결, 연방제통일방안합의 등을 위하여 투쟁하여야 한다는 내용을 담아 이를 그 판시와 같이 배포하였다면 피고인의 행위는 그 의도가 남한의 진정한 민주적 발전, 한반도 내에서 고조되는 군사적 긴장과 대결의 해소, 평화구조의 정착, 한미간불평등 협정의 개정과 수입개방반대, 외세의 배격, 현실적이고 합리적인 통일방안의 제시 등을 목적으로 하고 있다 하더라도 그 내용이 객관적으로 북한이 그들의 대남적화통일전략을 위하여 우리의 정치, 경제, 사회체제를 미제국주의의 식민지 내지 매판체제 또는 종속적 지배관계라고 허위선전하면서 반미반정부활동을 책동하고 위장평화공세를 하고 있는 선전선동활동과 그 궤를 같이하고 있는 것으로서 현실적으로 북한이 이를 악용할 수 있게 되면 반국가단체인 북한을 이롭게 한 것이라 볼 수 있고 피고인의 지식 정도로 보아 피고인은 판시행위가 반국가단체인 북한을 이롭게 하고 대한민국의 존립, 안전이나 자유민주적 기본질서를 위태롭게 하는 내용이라는 것쯤은 인식하고 있었다고 볼 수 있으므로 원심이 피고인의 소위가 반국가단체의 활동에 동조한 내용이고 피고인에게 범의가 있었다고 판시한 것은 정당하며, 이적표현물 제작, 반포죄의 점에 대하여, 원심이 적법히 확정한 바와 같이 제1심판시 제1의 나항에 있어서 피고인이 판시 유인물에 이북의 통일정책을 소개하고 남한정권이 식민지권력이고 기만적 대북정책을 유지하고 있으며 연방제통일방안합의, 반미와 미군철수투쟁, 연공연북의식의 고양 등의 내용을, 제1심판시 제1의 라항에 있어서 피고인이 판시 유인물에 미, 일외세의 식민지정책에 대한 앞잡이 노릇하는 친미군사독재정권종식과 반미투쟁, 핵무기배치와 팀스피리트 등 핵전쟁연습반대운동전개, 연방제통일방안합의, 미군철수, 불평등조약협정폐기, 국가보안법철폐 등을 위하여 투쟁하여야 한다는 내용을, 제1심판시 제1의 마항에 있어서 피고인이 판시 전대협총회자료집이란 유인물에 반미와 친미군사정권의 식민지 파쇼통치철폐, 노동자·농민 등 기층민중을 중심으로 한 투쟁, 연방제합의, 국가보안법철폐, 미군철수등을 위하여 투쟁하여야 한다는 내용을 담아 각 배포하였고 판시 전대협총회에 보내는 조선학생위원회 축전이란 유인물은 남한정권이 분립주의자들로서 외세에 의존하고 전쟁과 분열을 추구하고 있으며 국가보안법에 의하여 남한의 통일운동을 탄압하는 남한당국을 규탄할 것을 주장한다는 내용이 담긴 것이었음에도 이를 판시와 같이 배포하였다면 그와 같은 내용은 객관적으로 보아 반국가단체인 북한의 대남혁명전략이나 그에 따른 통일노선 등 대남선전선동 등의 활동에 동조하는 등의 이적성을 담고 있는 것이라고 볼 수 있고 피고인의 지식 정도로 보아 피고인은 판시 행위가 반국가단체인 북한을 이롭게 하고 대한민국의 존립, 안전이나 자유민주적 기본질서를 위태롭게 하는 내용이라는 것을 인식하고 있었다고 볼 수 있으며 객관적으로 반국가단체인 북한의 대남선전선동 등의 활동에 동조하여 반국가단체나 그 활동을 이롭게 하거나 그 이익이 될 수 있는 내용이 담겨 있는 이적표현물을 그와 같이 인식을 하면서도 이를 반포하였다면 피고인에게는 위 표현물의 내용과 같은 이적행위가 될지도 모른다는 인식은 있는 것으로 추정되는 것이고 기록상 피고인의 판시행위가 이적목적이 없었다는 다른 자료가 나타나지 않고 있으므로 미필적 인식으로서의 목적 또한 있었다고 보아야 할 것이고( 당원 1992.3.31. 선고 90도2033 전원합의체판결 참조) 따라서 원심이 위 각 표현물을 반포한 피고의 판시행위에 대하여 국가보안법 제7조 제5항 을 적용한 것은 정당하며, 또한 제1심판시 제1의 다항에 있어서 원심 및 제1심이 그 증거에 의하여 적법히 확정한 바와 같이 피고인이 판시 서신교환의 성격을 국가보안법폐지를 위한 같은 법 어기기투쟁의 일환으로 규정하여 반국가단체인 북한의 구성원과 판시와 같이 서신을 주고 받았다면 피고인은 그 행위가 북한의 대남선전선동활동에 동조하는 것으로서 반국가단체인 북한을 이롭게 하고 대한민국의 존립, 안전이나 자유민주적 기본질서를 위태롭게 하는 내용이라는 것을 인식하고 있었다고 할 것이므로 원심이 피고인의 판시행위에 대하여 국가보안법 제8조 제1항 을 적용한 것은 정당하고 거기에 지적하는 바와 같은 체증법칙을 어기고 사실을 오인한 위법이 없다.

In addition, even if the arguments on the aggregate route of sub-lease as indicated in the holding are going to a progressive magazine, and the magazines, etc. are sold at a store, it cannot be said that the inducement in the judgment of the court of first instance does not constitute pro-enemy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2759, Apr. 14, 1992; 91Do2221, Jun. 9, 192; 92Do759, Jun. 26, 1992; 92Do759, Jun. 26, 1992; 92Do759, Jun. 26, 1992) is a fundamental right, but if necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare, it may be limited to the extent that it does not infringe on the essential contents of the freedom. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion in the United States Armed Forces and the unification proposal of the federal system, etc., as seen earlier, should not be justified.

4. As duly determined by the court below, if the defendant was to fly the artificial flag of North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, as part of the strike for the abolition of the National Security Act, and as stated in its reasoning, the defendant's act was committed for the purpose of symbolic expression of his intent, even though its intent is objectively recognized as an anti-government organization, and its existence and authority is objectively recognized as an anti-government organization, and thus, he concurrently expresses his opinion that he will comply with the existence and activities. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes an anti-government organization, which is a anti-government organization, and thus, it is well-known that the above act is likely to benefit North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and endanger the existence and security of the Republic of Korea or democratic fundamental order. Further, if the defendant broadcasted a tape on which the call was recorded to determine the unification plan as legitimate, the defendant's act was conducted for the unification strategy of North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and the court below's decision is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence that the defendant's act constitutes an anti-government organization.

5. The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is based on evidence, and the defendant was organized with non-indicted 1 and 2 on April 10, 192, and held a preparatory committee for the unification of the South and North Korean Peninsulas (afford names), and the chairman of the committee set forth the nature of the organization as temporary organization until the establishment of a pan-government movement in the 2nd unification axis, and then the non-indicted 2's organization was established with the view to the unification of the South and North Korean government, and there was no violation of the rules and regulations of the South and North Korean government and the regulations of the North Korean government for the unification of the South and North Korean government as well as the regulations and regulations of the North Korean government for the unification of the South and North Korean government, and there was no violation of the rules and regulations of the North Korean government for the unification of the North Korean government as well as the regulations and regulations of the North Korean government for the unification of the North Korean government and the records of the North Korean government for the unification of North Korean government.

6. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence cited by the court below, since the defendant's act of public gathering and demonstration on April 25, 192 among the acts of public gathering and demonstration on the first time of the first trial constitutes an act of public gathering and demonstration, the defendant's participation in the assembly and demonstration jointly held by the National Unification Union in the capacity of a sub-council leader, etc., leading the 3,000 university students to participate in the assembly and demonstration at the same time as the one of the above acts of public gathering and demonstration, and the defendant's participation in the assembly and demonstration on May 31 of the same year constitutes an act of public gathering and demonstration, and thus, the defendant's participation in the assembly and demonstration on the condition that the defendant did not participate in the assembly and demonstration at the same time as the one of the above acts of public gathering and demonstration on the same time as the one of the co-owners of the above acts of public gathering and demonstration on the condition that the defendant did not participate in the assembly and demonstration at the same time as the one of the co-owners of the above acts of public gathering and movement.

In addition, the argument that the Assembly and Demonstration Act is a malicious law does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, and even if the right of assembly and demonstration is a fundamental right, it is not an unlimited freedom, but it is permitted to the extent that it does not go against the national security, the maintenance of order, or the public welfare. As seen earlier, each assembly and demonstration held by the defendant, which are obviously a direct threat to public safety and order as provided by the Assembly and Demonstration Act, constitutes an assembly and demonstration. In addition, even though the competent authority submitted a report of assembly and demonstration as alleged in the decision on May 19, 192 in holding the assembly and demonstration as of May 31, 1992, there is no evidence to deem that the above assembly and demonstration were dismissed or obstructed without justifiable grounds. All arguments are without merit.

7. Of the grounds of appeal by the defendant himself, the part concerning the harm of the division of national land and the meaning of unification, the subject and method of the unification movement, the reason why the unification movement is to be carried out now, the requirements for the current regime, etc. is shown by the defendant's idea, and it cannot be a legitimate

8. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in imprisonment with prison labor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)