The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the expressive materials of this case are active and aggressive to threaten the existence and security of the nation and democratic fundamental order, but the judgment below did not constitute pro-enemy materials with regard to the acquitted portion is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the nature of the crime, such as not imposing a suspension of qualification even though it is necessary to deprive a criminal who violates the National Security Act of his/her voting right for a certain period of time, the lower court’s punishment is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles on the assertion of facts must be made with active and aggressive contents that threaten the nation’s existence and security and free democratic fundamental order, which are protected legal interests of the National Security Act. Whether the contents of the expressive materials have an objection to the foregoing nature should be determined by taking into account not only the overall contents of the expressive materials, but also the overall circumstances, such as the motive for preparation thereof, the form and external relation with the expressive act, and the situation at the time of the expressive act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do1189, Jul. 23, 2010). Article 7(5) of the National Security Act applies to cases where the expressive materials are distributed or possessed for the purpose of obscenity, concert, etc., and the elements of obscenity, etc. are limited to cases where there is an obvious risk of substantial harm to the nation’s existence and security and free democratic basic order (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do758, Apr. 17, 2008).