All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning for the Defendants’ appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendants of the instant facts charged (except for the part without a crime) on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the outcome of North Korea’s anti-state organization, unconstitutionality of the National Security Act, warrant requirement, rule excluding illegally collected evidence, violation of the right to assistance of counsel, violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc., violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, Articles 106(3), 123(2), (3), and 218, and 313(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, whether the admissibility of evidence is recognized, the dual nature of expressive materials, and the purpose of transfer, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged.

In addition, Defendant A’s assertion to the effect that sentencing is unfair, but only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is pronounced, an appeal is allowed for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, in the instant case where the above Defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unfair is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the National Security Act (special escape) around March 2014 and the violation of the National Security Act (convening communications, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.