The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. To be recognized as pro-enemy contents under the National Security Act, the contents of the expressive materials must be active and aggressive to threaten the existence and security of the nation, which is the legal interest protected under the National Security Act, and the fundamental order of free democracy. Whether the expressive materials have such an objection shall be determined not only by the whole contents of the expressive materials, but also by taking into account all the circumstances such as the motive for the production thereof, the form of the expressive act itself, and matters

In addition, the crime of Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act is producing, importing, copying, possessing, transporting, distributing, selling, or acquiring documents, paintings, or other representations for the purpose of committing the act of immigration under Article 1, 3, and 4. The purpose of the crime is the so-called crime. Since the purpose of the crime is to establish the crime, since the actor is separately required other than the intention to establish the crime, even if he committed the act under paragraph (5) with the awareness of the nature of

In addition, since the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the elements of a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove that the perpetrator had the intent to act pro-enemy, and it cannot be presumed that the perpetrator had the intent to act pro-enemy, solely on the fact that the perpetrator knowingly committed an act under paragraph (5).

(2) On July 23, 2010, the lower court held that: (a) the Defendant acquired, possessed, or distributed ten pro-enemy materials in total; and (b) each expressive material indicated in the remainder of the facts charged, including parts similar to the North Korea’s assertion, such as anti-U.S. dollars, U.S. bar bar, repeal of the National Security Act, and the legalization of the pro-enemy organization.