A. Whether or not the purpose of the act of benefiting anti-government organizations under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act is required

B. Whether an act of praiseing, encouraging, speaking in concert with an anti-government organization, or publishing a letter constitutes a constituent element under Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act, under the awareness that an reader or audience read, listen to, and see, the audience’s participation in the activities of the anti-government organization.

(c) Limit of guarantee of freedom of study;

D. Whether measures such as the issuance of the certificate of completion of delivery by the relevant administrative authority constitute the basis for the legality of the Defendants’ acts of the aforementioned sub-paragraph (b)

A. An act of forming an anti-government organization or a member thereof, or a person who received an order from an anti-government organization, as provided by Article 7(1) of the National Security Act, in which the contents of an act can objectively benefit from an anti-government organization, such an act constitutes an act if the contents of such act can objectively be seen as an act. In addition, there is sufficient awareness that a person with a normal mind and considerable intelligence knowledge may recognize or benefit from an anti-government organization, and there is sufficient awareness that such an act may benefit an anti-government organization, and there is no need for awareness that the act would benefit an anti-government organization.

B. In a case where it is not interpreted that a part of a literature or a speaker’s or a speaker’s speaking constitutes a constituent element of Article 7(1) of the National Security Act, in a case where a certain part of the literature or a speaker’s or speaker’s speaking is not likely to be obscenity, rubber, or concert with the activities of an anti-government organization, and a part of the literature or speaker’s speaking or speaker’s speaking with the knowledge that he or she helps see or listen to the part of the anti-government organization and that he or she has a sense of mind, such act constitutes a constituent element of Article

C. The freedom of study under the Constitution is limited to a case where the pure purpose is to search for truth. Thus, an act of speaking, encouraging, or promoting the activities of anti-government organizations under the awareness that the activities of anti-government organizations are in concert with it, and a presentation of writing is not already an academic activity.

D. Even if the instant private education land was issued by the relevant administrative authority the certificate of completion of the payment, the Defendants’ act is not legitimate due to the measures taken by the relevant administrative authority.

(a)Article 7(1)(c) of the National Security Act; Article 21 of the Constitution;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983, 83Do185 delivered on March 22, 1983, and 84Do2310 delivered on November 27, 1984. (B) Supreme Court Decision 78Do2706 delivered on January 16, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 82Do1847 delivered on September 14, 1982

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee In-bok, Han-hun, Kim Sung, Kim Dong-dong

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No1816 delivered on June 13, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

Defendant 1 shall be included in the principal sentence for sixty days, out of the days pending trial after the appeal.

The defendants and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined together.

1. An act of taking advantage of an anti-government organization as provided by Article 7 (1) of the National Security Act or a member thereof, or a person who acts in concert with, or in concert with, an anti-government organization in any manner, constitutes if the contents of the act can objectively benefit of an anti-government organization. In addition, if there is insufficient awareness that a person with a normal mind and considerable intelligence knowledge may recognize that the act constitutes an anti-government organization, or gain benefit from, it is sufficient to know that the act would benefit an anti-government organization, and if there is sufficient awareness that the act would be an anti-government organization, the purpose of the act should not be taken advantage of it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do2310, Nov. 27, 1984; 83Do185, Mar. 22, 1983; 82Do3248, Mar. 8, 1983).

In this view, the court below's decision is just in holding that the Defendants' remarks or comments merely point out the contradictions on the current educational system of Korea, and further, it is not possible to find out the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation, in the process of fact-finding of the court below, that the Defendants' decision was just in the original trial, and there is no other error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding by the court below, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants' remarks or comments merely point out the contradictions on the current educational system of Korea; (b) the our society and economic system propaganda as a new consciousness or subordinate relationship with the advanced capital state; (c) inciting, inciting, inciting, inciting, and against anti-public education.

2. As pointed out in the arguments, it should not be discussed separately by removing the section in which the basic principles of literature interpretation are problematic, but even if it is necessary to examine the whole part of the above section in relation to the whole, since "an act of pro-government organization or its members or those who received the order from it is punished as the National Security Act", the above elements of the National Security Act are punishable as "an act of pro-government organization's praise, rubber, or assistance in, or in other ways." Thus, if it is not interpreted that the part of the literature or the speech in question is praise, rubber, or assistance with the activities of the anti-government organization, it is not so long as it is difficult to interpret that the part of the speech or the speech in question is praise, rubber, and assistance with the activities of the anti-government organization, and that part of the speech or speech is read or heard by its readers or audience, and that it constitutes the above elements of the National Security Act's violation of the National Security Act's provision (see Supreme Court Decision 197Do1678, Jul. 16, 197).

3. In addition, since the freedom of learning under the Constitution is recognized only when the pure purpose is to search for truth (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1847, Sept. 14, 1982). Thus, as seen in the instant case, the Defendants’ act of speaking and speaking at the time of original inquiry under the awareness that the activities of anti-government organizations are praise, encourage, or assist in the activities of anti-government organizations cannot be deemed academic activities. Even if the instant private education place was issued by the relevant administrative authority, the Defendants’ act is not legitimate due to the measures taken by the relevant administrative authority, and therefore, it cannot be admitted to the argument that the lower court, which puts the Defendants into violation of the National Security Act, erred in the application of the Act and subordinate statutes.

Therefore, all appeals are without merit. Each of the appeals by the Defendants is dismissed, and as to Defendant 1, part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment with prison labor of the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)