The judgment below

The conviction part, "207 Ep. Ep. E. E. E. E. E. E. E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts - Of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant acquired or possessed the expressive materials of (2) No. 9, 10, 11, and 12 in the list of crimes in the attached Form No. 15, 16, and the list of crimes in the attached Form No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, but each of the said expressive materials does not constitute “the expression”.

Even if the expressive materials constitute the ethical expressive materials, the Defendant did not know that each of the said expressive materials would endanger the fundamental democratic order, and did not possess for the purpose of engaging in the ethic act.

2) Illegal conviction even if the sentencing was committed.

Even if the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of suspended execution and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles - The document of the crime list (1) 1 to 14, 17 through 23 attached to the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below, attached to the crime list (2) 1 to 8, 13, and 14 attached to the judgment of the court below, and the document of “related to the construction of a national organization for youth sports” constitutes a pro rata expression as follows. Considering the Defendant’s dual organization activity experience, the records of having been punished for violating the National Security Act, and the circumstances of holding each of the above representations, the purpose of the pro rata act can be sufficiently recognized. In full view of all the circumstances recognized by the records, the Defendant read and confirmed the e-mail received by the Defendant to his e-mail account, and possessed the expression received by e-mail.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above 32 expressive materials do not constitute a foreign expressive material, and that the defendant had an intention to commit a foreign act.

It is difficult to see

The Court ruled.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the act constitutes a foreign expression, whether the act constitutes a foreign expression, and the method and standard for determining the purpose of the act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.