On the 19th, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Defendant A, who was indicted on charges of violating the National Security Act (praising and encouraging others), and sentenced him to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, and a qualification.
The court upheld the original ruling that handed down a one-year suspension. Defendant A has been a fixed-term teacher of history classes at high schools and junior high schools since March 2001, and has been a general education teacher since March 2013.
The prosecution said that since 2009, defendant A has been involved in activities that praise, encourage, or sympathize with North Korean activities as an anti-national organization.
Defendant A was indicted on the grounds that he had participated in the activities of Group B, which aimed to promote "federal unification" after the North-South summit on June 15, 2000.
They have been calling for the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea and the abolition of the National Security Law as prerequisites for unification under a federal system. Defendant A attended the group's regular meetings six times between March 2007 and May 2010.
He participated in the group and, together with other members, organized regular rallies calling for unification as a federal government and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea. He also posted on the group's website from his home computer articles calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea and the dissolution of the National Intelligence Service.
He was indicted on suspicion of publishing articles in support of North Korea's claims. The first trial sentenced Defendant A to one year in prison, suspended for two years, and suspended his licenses for one year.
The court found that he had violated the National Security Law by participating in regular rallies, setting up and managing a website, and posting material that benefits the enemy. However, there had been no previous cases of punishment for similar crimes,
The second trial took into consideration the relatively short period of time that Defendant A was involved in activities related to enemy-related groups. The second trial overturned the lower trial and sentenced Defendant A to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, and suspended his licenses for one year.
The court found him innocent of the charge of violating the National Security Law for "possession" of material that supports the nation's interests, as there was no other evidence to prove otherwise, and found him guilty of the remaining charges.
"There was a substantial risk of endangering the basic order of a liberal democracy." Furthermore, the second trial also ruled that the request filed by defendant A to have the National Security Law adjudicated as unconstitutional was without merit.
The Supreme Court further ruled that "it is difficult to accept the defendant's claim that the freedom of expression was violated." The Supreme Court accepted the lower court's decision and dismissed Defendant A's appeal.
"There was no error that influenced the verdict by failing to conduct the necessary examination, violating the rules of logic and experience, or misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the admissibility of evidence or the establishment of the crime of violating the National Security Law," the appeal was dismissed.
In this ruling, the court set a balance between freedom of expression and national security, and determined that acts punishable under the National Security Law are acts that substantially harm the existence and security of the nation and the basic order of a free and democratic society.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the right to freedom of expression is limited to cases where there is a clear risk of harm. In a Supreme Court ruling in April 2014, the court ruled on the existence of Group B as a group that favors the enemy.
was also applied.
2025/03/19 07:09 KST
Copyrights(C) Edaily wowkorea.jp 107