Details of the intent of the crime in violation of Article 7 (3) and (5) of the National Security Act;

The term "organization of an organization which aims to commit an act under paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 7 of the National Security Act" means the formation of an organization to commit such an act while recognizing that an act which a member intends to commit is objectively beneficial to an anti-government organization. In this case, it is sufficient that there is a dolusent perception that an act may be objectively beneficial to an anti-government organization. In addition, the term "production, possession, distribution, and distribution of foreign expressions" as provided in Article 7 (5) of the same Act means an act of producing, possessing, distributing, or distributing them, while recognizing that an act is objectively in concert with an act of propaganda, inducement, etc. of an anti-government organization, and it does not require that an act of producing, possessing, or distributing them should be made for the benefit of an anti-government organization, or that it would result in a benefit of an anti-government organization.

Articles 7(3) and 7(5) of the National Security Act, Article 13 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Do1429 Decided September 23, 1986, 86Do1499 Decided September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Do434 Decided April 28, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Do929 Decided September 22, 1987

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 89No2938 delivered on November 23, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

Number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the judgment of the court below and the adopted evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of this case committed by the defendant in violation of the National Security Act, and it cannot be said that there were errors by the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. The term "organization of an organization which aims to commit an act under paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 7 of the National Security Act" means the formation of an organization to commit such an act while recognizing that an act which a member intends to commit is objectively the benefit of an anti-government organization. In this case, it is sufficient that there is a dolusent perception that the member is not required to act as an anti-government organization and may benefit therefrom. In addition, the term "production, possession, distribution, and distribution of emulative items" under Article 7 (5) of the same Act means the production, possession, distribution, and distribution of emulative items with objective intent to act as an anti-government organization in concert with the act of propaganda, inducement, etc. of an anti-government organization, and it does not require that the act be made with intent to benefit of or benefit from the anti-government organization (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1498, Sep. 23, 198; 200Do4897, Apr. 29, 1986).

According to the facts that the court below and the first instance court recognized lawfully by its adopted evidence, the labor union of this case constitutes the labor union of this case with the awareness as stated in its decision with the guidance ideology and objective like the time of the original adjudication, and under the recognition as stated in its reasoning, the defendant produced, distributed, or possessed the printed matter or book of this case for the activities of the labor union of this case. Thus, the above so-called of the defendant constitutes the crime of producing, distributing, and possessing pro-enemy contents under Article 7 (5) of the National Security Act, since the crime of forming pro-enemy contents under Article 7 (3) of the same Act constitutes the crime of forming pro-enemy contents under Article 7 (5) of the same Act. Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is justified and there is no violation of law

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 26 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)