A. The anti-government organization of North Korea

(b) The case where "Korea Democratic Unification Union" is an anti-government organization;

C. The meaning of national secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act

D. Requirements for establishing crimes of accepting money and valuables under Article 5 (2) of the National Security Act

E. The meaning of Order under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act

F. Whether Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act is unconstitutional

(g) whether, while recognizing this aptitude, an import, storage, or possession of representations satisfies the requirements of immigration objectives;

H. Requirements for establishing crimes of communication and meeting under Article 8(1) of the National Security Act

A. In a situation where it is obvious that North Korea is a threat to our free democratic basic order, even if the Korean government used the name of North Korean authority, proposed a normal conference to discuss the reconciliation and cooperation among South and North Korea Koreans, as well as unification, and made a declaration of open policies related to North Korea, such as the name of 7.4 South and North Korea joint name and 7.7 Declaration, etc., and South and North Korea joined the United Nations at the same time, and the total interest in South and North Korea signed an agreement on reconciliation between South and North Korea and North Korea, it cannot be said that North Korea is not an anti-government organization under the National Security Act.

B. If the members of the Japanese headquarters, which is an anti-government organization, of the Korean National Assembly for the Promotion of the Unification of South Korea, developed the Korean National Assembly for the Promotion of the Unification and subsequently changed only its name to the Korean Democratic Unification Union, the Korean Democratic Unification Association cannot be deemed an anti-government organization

C. State secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act include all state secrets, such as politics, economy, culture, and society, which are necessary for the benefit of the Republic of Korea because it is not confidential or confirmed against anti-government organizations. It is not limited to state secrets in the first sense, but includes all state secrets, such as politics, economy, culture, and society. Even if it is widely known through legitimate procedures in the Republic of Korea, it is advantageous to North Korea, which is anti-government organizations, and if it may cause disadvantages to the Republic of Korea.

D. The crime of receiving money and valuables under the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191) or Article 5 (2) of the current National Security Act is established by the receipt of money and valuables from a member of an anti-government organization or a person who received an order, with the knowledge of the fact that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order. It is not limited to the case where the receipt of money and valuables is intended to harm the Republic of Korea, regardless of the value or value of the money and valuables received, and it is not limited to the case where the receipt of money and valuables is intended to harm the Republic of Korea.

E. Article 6(2) of the National Security Act does not necessarily require a control relationship with a view to the concept of command and order, and there is no restriction in its form.

F. Article 6(2) of the National Security Act applies to a case where a locked act threatens the existence and security of the State or threatens to endanger the fundamental order of free democracy, it cannot be deemed that the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution, in particular, the freedom of movement of residence, as stipulated by the Constitution.

G. The crime of violation of the current National Security Act or Article 7(5) of the former National Security Act requires the purpose of committing an act under Article 7(1). However, even though the contents of the expressive materials are aware that they contain aptitude, if they were imported, stored, or possessed, it is presumed that the act was not aware that they would be an act of transfer, and the elements of the above provision are satisfied.

H. The crime of meeting and communication under Article 8(1) of the current National Security Act or Article 8(1) of the former National Security Act is established with the knowledge of the fact that it would be an interest of anti-government organizations, or with the knowledge of the fact that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order, which is established upon the meeting and communication of the members or persons who have received the order. It does not require a prior common intent between the members of the meeting, unless it is a meeting at any different level from courtesy and private level, and it does not necessarily require a prior common intention, and it does not necessarily require a discussion or decision on certain matters, and it is sufficient to recognize it as a group in the course of a series of activities for the accomplishment of the purpose.

A. Article 2(1)2(d) of the National Security Act; Article 5(2) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373, May 31, 1991); Article 6(2)6(f) of the Constitution; Article 7(5) of the former National Security Act; Article 8(1) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373, May 31, 1991)

A.C. D. Supreme Court Decision 94Do930 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1871). (B) Supreme Court Decision 93Do1730 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 308), Supreme Court Decision 90Do133 delivered on September 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 2113), Supreme Court Decision 90Do1749 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2338 delivered on October 29, 1993), 93Do1951 delivered on October 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3120 delivered on September 29, 209). (3) 194Do3949 delivered on September 29, 209.

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-young

Gwangju High Court Decision 95No211 delivered on June 16, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.

The defendant and his state appointed defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

(1) As to whether North Korea and the Korean Democratic Unification Union are anti-government organizations

In a situation where it is obvious that North Korea is threatening to the basic liberal democratic order, even though the Korean government used the name of North Korean authority, proposed a normal conference to discuss reconciliation, cooperation, and unification between South and North Korea Koreans, and made a declaration of opening policies related to North Korea, such as joint names between South and North Korea on July 4, 200 and 7.7.7 Declaration, etc. North Korea joined the United Nations at the same time, North Korea joined the United Nations at the same time, and North Korea signed the agreement on reconciliation, unrefinite and exchange and cooperation between South and North Korea, North Korea cannot be viewed as an anti-government organization under the National Security Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1730, Sept. 28, 1993; 94Do930, May 24, 1994).

Meanwhile, according to the records, the members of the Japanese headquarters of the Korean Democratic Unification Promotion Council, which is called an anti-government organization as an abbreviationd person, has been reorganizedly reorganized and changed only the name to the Korean Democratic Unification Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Union"). As such, the Korean Government cannot be viewed as an anti-government organization (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do646 delivered on June 8, 1990; 90Do1744 delivered on October 12, 1990).

It cannot be said that there is no error in the judgment of the court below that recognized North Korea as an anti-government organization under the National Security Act. The argument is without merit.

(2) As to the leakage of national secrets

State secrets under Article 4 (1) 2 of the National Security Act are all information and materials necessary for the benefit of the Republic of Korea that may not be confidential or confirmed against anti-government organizations. It includes all state secrets of each country relating to politics, economy, culture, society, etc. without being limited to state secrets in the first sense. Even if public information is widely known through lawful procedures, etc. in the Republic of Korea, if it is favorable for North Korea, which is an anti-government organization, and may cause disadvantage to the Republic of Korea, it is deemed that it belongs to state secrets (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2068 delivered on October 27, 1992; 93Do1951 delivered on October 8, 1993 and 94Do930 delivered on May 24, 1994). The court below's decision is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to state secrets.

(3) As to receipt of money and valuables

Article 5 (2) of the former National Security Act (amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 1991) or Article 5 (2) of the current National Security Act is established by the receipt of money from a member of an anti-government organization or a person who receives an order with the knowledge of the fact that the act of receiving money and valuables is a member of an anti-government organization or a person who receives such order, or is aware of the fact that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order. It does not include the amount or value of the money and valuables, as well as the purpose of receiving money and valuables, and it does not constitute a case where there is an intention to harm the Republic of Korea (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2495, Dec. 24, 1991; 93Do1951, Oct. 8, 1993). Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court by comparing the records with the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, and thus, the defendant's act of receiving money and valuables or other valuables cannot be justified.

(4) As to the diving

Examining the evidence duly examined by the first instance court in light of the records, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant received an order from the non-indicted 1, the executive officer of Korea-Japan, within Japan, to enter the Republic of Korea through the Kimpo Airport for the purpose of accomplishing his original purpose. The term "order" under Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act does not necessarily require a control relationship between life-sustaining and life-sustaining under the concept including command and order, and there is no limit in its form. Thus, it is proper and proper that the court below determined that the defendant's act constitutes the crime of diving under the above provision, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts.

Meanwhile, the provision of Article 6 (2) of the National Security Act which punishs a person who, under the order of a member of an anti-government organization, fell under the category of a member of an anti-government organization, may not be deemed as essentially infringing upon the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution, especially the freedom of movement of residence as stipulated by the Constitution, unless the locked act may endanger the existence and security of the State or endanger the liberal democratic fundamental order (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1951, Oct. 8, 1993; 94Do930, May 24, 1994).

All arguments are without merit.

(5) As to the import, storage, and possession of pro-enemy materials

The crime of violation of the current National Security Act or Article 7 (5) of the former National Security Act requires the purpose of committing an act under paragraph (1). However, if the contents of the expressive materials are aware that they contain aptitude, and if they were imported, stored, or possessed, they are presumed to have dolusent awareness that they would have become a pro-enemy act, and the elements of the above provision are satisfied (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do2033 delivered on March 31, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Do1711 delivered on February 9, 193; Supreme Court Decision 93Do599 delivered on May 23, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 93Do599 delivered on May 23, 195). In light of the records, the judgment of the court of first instance that there was an objection to the defendant's act of importing, keeping, or possessing them in custody constitutes pro-enemy materials, it cannot be justified in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(6) As to meetings and communications

Article 8 (1) of the current National Security Act or Article 8 (1) of the former National Security Act provides that the crime of meeting or communication under the same provision of the same Act shall be established with the knowledge of the fact that it would be an interest of anti-government organizations, or with the knowledge of the fact that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order. It does not require a prior common intention between the meeting members, who are not a meeting at a completely different level of courtesy and private school level, and it does not necessarily require a prior common intention, and it does not necessarily have to discuss or determine certain matters, and it is sufficient to recognize that the meeting is a group in a series of activities for the accomplishment of the purpose (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1285, Aug. 24, 190; 93Do1951, Oct. 8, 1993; 200Do1951, Oct. 1, 199).

(7) Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and part of the days of detention after the appeal is included in imprisonment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)