<Anchor>



The 'Article 7 of the National Security Act', which punishes anti-state groups for praise or possession of signs of a sign, has been judged as constitutional seven times in the past despite the controversy over the toxic clause.

The Constitutional Court is examining whether the eighth case is unconstitutional, and this time, it held a public hearing for the first time.



Reporter Ahn Hee-jae on the sidewalk.



<Reporter> The



key provisions that have been brought to the Supreme Court of the Constitutional Court are Article 7, Paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 of the National Security Act.



Participating in anti-state group activities, making and distributing transfer books, or even possessing them, knowing that they are endangering the existence and safety of the country, is subject to imprisonment.



The unconstitutional side argued that the provision infringed upon freedom of expression and freedom of thought and conscience.



[Jo Ji-hoon / Attorney (Appellant's side): I was accused of violating the National Security Act just because I did something expressive.

.]



The Ministry of Justice, which is called constitutional, countered that the court also strictly interprets the National Security Act, reducing the risk of misuse.



[Park Gyu-hyung/Director of Public Criminal Investigation Division of the Ministry of Justice (Stakeholder): If it appears to be directly related to the existence of our country and to the lives and bodies of the people, it is desirable to protect the constitutional values ​​by restricting it by the state (preferably)



] There was also a strong objection that it is unfair to punish even the simple possession of expressions, and that there is a possibility of dissemination in the digital age.



Unlike the seven previous decisions on constitutionality, there are also cautious prospects that a different conclusion may be reached this time with the gathering of external opinions through public pleadings.



Five judges, including Chief Warden Yoo Nam-seok, once expressed the need to revise or abolish some of the past National Security Laws.



An unconstitutional decision can only be made with the consent of at least 6 out of 9 members.



(Video coverage: Seol Min-hwan, video editing: Jeong Seong-hoon, screen provided: Constitutional Court)