All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant (the misunderstanding of legal principle and the misunderstanding of facts) posted a statement in the list of crimes in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant notice”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, North Korea is not an anti-government organization, and the above notice is not an anti-government organization, and even if it is a pro-enemy pro-enemy organization, the Defendant did not have a pro-enemy

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and the confiscation No. 3-7, and 11) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case even in the lower court’s judgment on the erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

As to whether North Korea constitutes an anti-government organization, the lower court held that North Korea is a partner of dialogue and cooperation for the peaceful unification of South and North Korea, but on the other hand, despite the changes in the relationship between South and North Korea, still has the nature of an anti-government organization that is bound to wear our liberal democracy system by taking advantage of the timely unification route (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do189, Jul. 23, 2010). On the ground that a normal meeting between South and North Korea is held and the exchange and cooperation between South and North Korea is being carried out, North Korea’s anti-government organization was extinguished.

It cannot be deemed that the normative power of the National Security Act, which aims to secure the security of the State and the lives and freedom of citizens, is lost by regulating any anti-state activity that may endanger the security of the Republic of Korea.

The reason is that North Korea was an anti-government organization. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3212 delivered on August 30, 2004).

In addition, as to whether the notice of this case constitutes pro-enemy contents, the lower court’s comments on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the attached list 1 of the notice of this case as indicated in the lower judgment.