A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In this case, I first examine several matters discussed by the defendant and his defense counsel in this case, and then make a decision on the merits.

1. Although North Korea is a partner of dialogue and cooperation for the peaceful unification of South and North Korea, North Korea still has the nature of an anti-government organization that takes measures to reverse our liberal democracy system while taking advantage of the changes in the relationship between South and North Korea, and thus, the normative power of the National Security Act that regulates anti-government organizations is still valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do189, Jul. 23, 2010). Thus, the aforementioned anti-government organization is not extinguished solely on the basis that North Korea joined the United Nations at the same time with the Republic of Korea and is recognized as a domestic and overseas country by establishing a nation with 161 nation.

In addition, inasmuch as the provisions of the National Security Act are reasonably interpreted in light of the purpose of the Act, the concept of the elements of each crime under the National Security Act is ambiguous, and it cannot be viewed as infringing on the essential contents of the principle of no punishment without law

Although freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of general action, etc. are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no restriction. If necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare under Article 37(2) of the Constitution, it may be restricted to the extent that it does not infringe on the essential contents of the freedom and rights. Thus, the legislative purpose and application of the National Security Act are limited to the extent that it does not infringe on the essential contents of the freedom and rights as mentioned above. Thus, it is unconstitutional to interpret that the National Security Act