A. Whether the act of manufacturing, possessing, distributing the expression "the production, possession, and distribution of the expression" under Article 7 (1) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991) requires the awareness of the purpose of transfer, or the occurrence of the pro rata result (negative)

(b) The case holding that it falls under the provision of Article 7 (5) of the former National Security Act to the expression of incentives distributed in the NAEM, and to the expression of support such as reading the "business plan" at the above formation rally and drinking for stuffs, etc., it constitutes the provision of the same Act;

(c) Whether the first instance judgment is appropriate to take measures that do not include part of the detention days before a sentence is rendered (affirmative)

A. The phrase "an act of manufacturing, possessing, distributing, or distributing an expression" under Article 7 (1) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191) refers to an act of producing, distributing, distributing, or distributing an expression objectively in concert with an act of an anti-government organization while recognizing that the contents of the act can objectively benefit the interests of an anti-government organization, and it does not require sufficient awareness that the act of a person with a normal mind and equivalent intelligence or common sense may benefit from, or gain benefit from, the act of an anti-government organization. It does not require any awareness that the act of a person with a normal mind and common sense may benefit from, the act of an anti-government organization. It does not require any awareness that the act of a person with an anti-government organization would benefit from, or gain benefit from, the act of an anti-government organization.

(b) The case holding that it falls under the provision of Article 7 (5) of the former National Security Act that presented the support by such means as reading out the "business plan" at the above organization competition and drinking water for the printed matter, etc., where the printed matter distributed in the NAEM constitutes a representation under the provision of Article 7 (5) of the same Act;

C. Even if the court of first instance did not include part of the detention days before the judgment of the defendant in the original sentence, it belongs to the discretion of the court of judgment. Thus, there is no error of law by misapprehending the interpretation and application of Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

A. B. Article 7(1) and (5) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 87Do434 delivered on April 28, 1987 (Gong1987,93) (Gong1987,93) 90Do2607 delivered on February 28, 1991 (Gong1991,107) 91Do139 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991,1322). Supreme Court Decision 83Do1740 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983,1386) 82Do2528 delivered on November 22, 1983 (Gong1984,134) 86Do169 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986,3158)

A

Defendant

Attorneys B and 2 others

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No6450 delivered on January 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence 49 days.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant and his defense counsel (the supplemental appellate brief was submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the appellate brief, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance by the court below in light of the records, it shall be sufficient to acknowledge each crime of violation of the National Security Act, violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against the defendant at the time of the first trial, which the court below maintained, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, or misconception of facts or lack of reasoning due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc

2. Article 7 (1) and (5) of the National Security Act does not violate the provisions of the theory of lawsuit, unless the act is applied when it threatens to endanger the existence and security of the State or when it threatens to endanger the free democratic fundamental order. The term "act of benefiting from acting in concert with the activities of an anti-government organization" as provided in Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act means if the contents of the act can objectively be an interest of an anti-government organization. It is sufficient that there is a dolusive perception that a person with a normal mind and equivalent intelligence or common sense can benefit from an anti-government organization. It does not require an intention to benefit from an anti-government organization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1499, Sept. 23, 1986; 87Do434, Apr. 28, 1987; 97Do497, Apr. 29, 197). 197; 2009Do39497.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, it can be seen that the contents of the inducements produced and distributed by the defendant, etc. at the former Ethical meeting are in concert with the activities of anti-government organizations, such as publicity to South Korea and inciting North Korea, which are anti-government organizations, and thus, they can benefit from such activities. Thus, it can be seen that the defendant had awareness that the contents of his act can benefit from North Korea in that he read the "business plan" as stated in the judgment at the time of the formation of the above competition, and the defendant with normal intelligence and awareness of the fact that he expressed his support for other inducements by taking advantage of gambling, etc. In light of the fact that all the inducements in the judgment were illegally produced and distributed at the former Ethical meeting, and that it is likely that the act constitutes an act of causing harm to the security of the Republic of Korea or infringing the fundamental order of free democracy, and therefore, the judgment below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension or application of the theory of the lawsuit by the defendant.

3. In light of the records, the court below is just in applying Article 30 of the Criminal Act to the act of filing a lawsuit, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principle, and even if the judgment of the court of first instance did not include part of the detention days prior to the judgment of the defendant in the original sentence, this is a matter belonging to the discretion of the court of judgment, and there is no error of law by erroneous interpretation and application of Article 57 of the Criminal Act. All arguments on this point

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)