Clause 7 of National Security Law Found to Be Constitutional

The nine-justice general panel of the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled on August 26 that Articles 1 and 5 of Clause 7 of the National Security Law, which ban the praise and encouragement of the enemy and the possession of enemy-benefiting publications, are constitutional, rejecting a petition filed by a man who wants to be identified as Kim over the constitutionality of the law.

The ruling came amid a debate over whether to repeal the National Security Law that is heating up the politicians.

“Since the 1991 revision of the National Security Law, concerns have been assuaged over the arbitrary interpretation of the broad application of the law,” said the court in the ruling. “Its abstract wording is hardly seen in any breach of the principle of legalism.”

“The ban on enemy-benefiting publications (Clause 5 of Article 7) is not aimed at the possession of such materials for purely academic or artistic purposes, but the possession for endangering the security of the state or basic democratic order,” the court added in the ruling. “The clause is not seen in any breach of the freedom of conscience and idea.”

“The ruling is a reconfirmation of the court’s position that the National Security Law itself does not contain an unconstitutional aspect,” said the court in a press release. “It is needed to reflect the court’s position in future legislation [related to the National Security Law].”

Kim was indicted under the National Security Law banning the praise and encouragement of the enemy and the possession of enemy-benefiting publications in August of last year. He unsuccessfully filed a petition over the constitutionality of the law while he was in an appeals process. In December, he filed another petition with the Constitutional Court.

Sang-Rok Lee myzodan@donga.com