[1] Whether the National Security Act is unconstitutional (negative)

[2] The meaning of an immigration organization under the National Security Act

[3] Whether 'the South Korean Civil Association' is a dual organization separate from 'the Preparation Committee for the South Korean Civil Association' (affirmative)

[4] The meaning of "a person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under the National Security Act

[1] The principle of international peace and peaceful unification declared by the Constitution in Articles 4 and 5 is premised on the premise that it does not harm the Daejeon system of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which is the fundamental order of free democracy. Thus, in a clear situation where it is obvious that North Korea has not yet renounced the fundamental order of free democracy in our society with military power and there is no clear indication that North Korea has given up the renunciation of the fundamental order of free democracy, and it is a threat to our society, it cannot be deemed that the National Security Act, the purpose of which is to secure the security of the State and the survival and freedom of the people, by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the security of the State, is in violation of the Constitution. In light of the purpose of the National Security Act, the concept of the elements of each crime under the National Security Act, which is reasonably interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Act,

[2] Under the National Security Act, an anti-government organization is an organization whose purpose is to praise, encourage, advertise, or aid or instigate the activities of an anti-government organization or its members or those of the deceased, or to promote and instigate the national defense, on the premise that there is a separate anti-government organization, and its ultimate objective is to defend the nation and to establish a new government in accordance with the objective directed by an anti-government organization. Accordingly, the ultimate objective of all anti-government organizations and the dual organizations is the same.

[3] Under the present circumstances where the South Korean Unification Association (a person who is a member of the Korean Peninsula) is in need of consistent coordination and careful policy implementation in seeking unification and having contact with North Korea, it is reasonable to see that the South Korean government's South Korea's South Korea's South Korea's North Korea's South Korea's South Korea's North Korea's South Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's North Korea's South Korea's South Korea's South Korea's North Korea's Republic's North Korea's North Korea's

[4] The "person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under the National Security Act includes not only the person who received an order directly from an anti-government organization, but also the person who received the order again from the person who received the order. In this case, the order does not necessarily require a control relationship with the order, and there is no restriction in its form, but at least there is a dolusence about the order.

[1] Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution, Articles 4 and 7 of the National Security Act / [2] Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act / [3] Article 7 (3) of the National Security Act / [4] Articles 4 and 7 of the National Security Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do930 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3008), Supreme Court Decision 94Do930 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1871), Supreme Court Decision 96Do2673 delivered on December 23, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 583) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1813 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2149) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 72Do687 delivered on May 23, 197 (Gong20-2, 198), Supreme Court Decision 2009Do94969 delivered on September 26, 198 (Gong19694, Sept. 26, 196)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Law Firm National Law Office, Attorneys Lee Jong-gn et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 96No1224 delivered on September 23, 1996

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. The principle of international peace and peaceful unification declared by the Constitution in Articles 4 and 5 is premised on the premise that it does not harm the whole free and democratic fundamental order of the Republic of Korea. Thus, in the situation where it is obvious that North Korea has not yet renounced the fundamental order of free democracy in our society with military power and it is clear that there is a threat to the basic order of free democracy, it cannot be deemed that the National Security Act, the purpose of which is to secure national security and the survival and freedom of citizens by regulating anti-state activities that may endanger the national security, is in violation of the Constitution, and it cannot be deemed that the concept of the elements of each crime under the National Security Act, which is reasonably interpreted in light of the purpose of the Act, violates the fundamental contents of the principle of no punishment without the law, since the concept of the elements of each crime under the National Security Act, which is reasonable interpretation in light of the purpose of the Act, is vague and broad (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do930, May 24, 1994).

B. Under the National Security Act, an anti-government organization is an organization whose purpose is to praise, encourage, advertise, or aid or instigate the activities of an anti-government organization or its members or those who are not employed by it, or which aims to promote and instigate the national defense, and its ultimate objective is to coordinate with the purpose directed by an anti-government organization and to form a new government. Thus, the ultimate objective of both an anti-government organization and a dual-government organization is the same (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1813, May 12, 1995, etc.).

The judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, recognized the following facts as to the South Korea's 2nd 5th 'the South Korea' and the South Korea's 1st 2nd 'the South Korea Democratic Republic of Korea'. On August 1, 198, Non-Indicted 1 et al., the 3th 1st 'the North Korea' was formed and announced as the 5th 'the North Korean Democratic Republic of Korea' and the 1st 2nd 5th 'the North Korean Democratic Republic of Korea'. The 3th 1st 'the North Korea' was established and announced as the 5th 'the North Korean Democratic Republic of Korea' and the 1st 2nd 5th 'the North Korean Democratic Republic of Korea'. It was proposed that the North Korea' was established and announced as the 1st 'the North Korean Democratic Republic of Korea' by the 1st Professor, the North Korean Democratic Republic of Korea'.

The court below, based on the above facts recognized as above, adopted the number of iron in foreign armed forces, the number of nuclear weapons, the replacement of the peace agreement with North Korea, the removal of malicious laws including the National Security Act, etc., and determined that the "Guminant South Korean Headquarters" established for the purpose of realizing it constitutes a dual organization, under the current circumstances that require consistent adjustment rate and careful policy implementation in seeking unification and in contact with North Korea.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as violation of the Constitution, violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and reason not to pay attention, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 1 of the National Security Act. Even if 'Gumingy South Korea Headquarters' is followed by the principles and regulations of 'Gumingy South Korea Preparatory Committee' and its organization is consistent, 'Gumingy South Korea Headquarters' is newly formed and its purpose, the adoption of new operating rules and the reorganization of organization was made, and the addition of new members was added, it is reasonable that 'Gumingy South Korea Headquarters' is a dual organization separate from 'Gumingy South Korea Preparatory Committee', so it cannot be accepted in all the grounds for appeal pointing this out as a violation of the principle of res judicata.

C. In this case where one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualification were imposed on the Defendant, the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant was ordered by Non-Indicted 4 through the defendant Kim Byung-kick's right. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal pointing

B. The "person who received an order from an anti-government organization" under the National Security Act includes not only the person who received an order directly from an anti-government organization but also the person who received the order again from the person who received the order. In this case, the order does not necessarily require a control relationship with the order, and there is no restriction on its form (see Supreme Court Decisions 72Do687 delivered on May 23, 197, 90Do646 delivered on June 8, 199, 95Do1624 delivered on September 26, 1995, etc.). However, as a person who received an order from an anti-government organization, it is required that at least do not have a control relationship with the order.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not have an incomplete perception of the age stated in the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the order under the National Security Act. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)