The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact that the defendant made a statement about the violation of the public law among the facts charged in the instant case on three occasions against the unspecified persons, the charge of violating the public law could be sufficiently recognized, but the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The crime of Article 4 (1) of the former Anti-Corruption Act is established when an act of pro-government organization or its members, or an act of pro-government organization is committed by praiseing, encouraging, or assisting in, or aiding and abetting the activities of an anti-government organization. In order to apply it, the contents of the act must objectively be the benefit of an anti-government organization, and subjectively be the awareness that it is an anti-government organization (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2658, Feb. 22, 1983). Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act amended by Act No. 4373, May 31, 1991, amended by Act No. 4373 of May 31, 191, separately provides that "It may endanger the national existence or democratic fundamental order," unlike Article 4 (1) of the former Anti-Corruption Act does not require the above legal requirements, but it is reasonable to interpret that the basic order of a free democracy is unconstitutional or its scope of application.

On the other hand, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is that there is a clear danger that the contents of the statement by the defendant may endanger the national existence and security or endanger the liberal democratic fundamental order, and it objectively becomes an interest of anti-government organization or subjectively is against anti-government organization.