All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to recognize the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal as a pro rata expressive material under Article 7(5) of the National Security Act, the content of the expressive material must be active and aggressive that threatens the nation’s existence and security and fundamental democratic order, which is a legal interest in the protection of the national security and freedom of democracy. Whether the expressive material has such an objection shall be determined by taking into account not only the overall content of the expressive material, but also the motive for the production, the form and external relation with the expressive act, and the circumstances at the time of the expressive act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1189, Jul. 23, 2010). The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the said expressive material is not deemed to have an objection against the said 35 expressive material,

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the expressive materials, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court, based on all the circumstances, including the contents of 10 representations as indicated in its reasoning, Defendant B’s career and position, and the background leading up to the posting by Defendant B, with the aim of recognizing the suitability of the said representations and of committing a dual act against Defendant B.

Recognizing this part of the facts charged, the court found the defendant guilty.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the purpose of the dual act or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation

3. Conclusion.