You don't know what a Fascist country is. Both DPRK and Saudi Arabia are deeply authoritarian, but neither are Fascist. Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy and DPRK is a totalitarian hermit kingdom.
If you ask me, Fascism can only be studied by the regimes that championed its ideals. Keep in mind Fascist movements and Fascist regimes differed greatly in both professed beliefs and public policies once they assumed leadership. Ergo, we should exclude Fascist movements that never reached power such as Mosley's British Union of Fascists or Codreanu's Iron Guard. Likewise, reactionary or monarchistic regimes like Francoist Spain or Imperial Japan do not count as Fascist regimes because Fascism is inherently modernist and thus opposed to monarchs (hello, Primo de Rivera). Furthermore, neither regime adopted the term nor the sufficient criteria of public policies that would define them as Fascists.
This leaves us with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Both regimes had these points in common that distinguished them from other Nationalist movements:
- Demoskepticism or opposition to democracy: Both saw democracy as corrupt, weak and morally degenerate. Unlike other dictatorships that pay lip service to democracy, Fascists openly oppose it on principle. Hitler and Mussolini planned to severely curtail, if not outright abolish, democracy once they assumed power. Of course, Fascist parties see the utility in democratic elections while holding contempt for the institution, but that's neither here nor there.
Spiritually rooted theories on racial purity couched in atavistic myths: Both regimes saw their ancestors as the Aryan and Roman supermen of a mythological past. They believed actively purifying their respective bloodlines would lead to their naturally dominant roles, establishing global hegemony.
- Violence as virtue: Both regimes believed war shaped and built a man's character. Fascists believed that men (and only men) could be shaped by war. Without continuous struggle, man eventually stagnates and falls into a state of degeneracy. Violence was not merely a means to an end; it was an end in and of itself. Fascists believe, much like India's Thuggee cult, that violence and killing strengthens the soul on a spiritual level. Perpetual state of war strengthens and purifies man's soul and the body politic. The book "In Stahlgewittern" (translated: "Storm of Steel") by Ernst Jünger has many of these themes. Ironically, he was privately opposed to Hitler and was peripherally connected to some men who planned on assassinating Der Führer.
- Collectivist Statism: The "Socialism" in National Socialism rejects the conventional notions of wealth redistribution and instead has much more in common with Oswald Spengler's idea of Prussian socialism. Keep in mind Spengler harshly criticized Hitler, but that's another story. NS dictates that the state and its people are one single entity. All people, not just the armed forces, but workers, women, children, are all part of the dominant and pure machine of the people-state. Individual identity is supplanted with the State identity. Everyone is the state, the state is everyone, the people move with one purpose.
- Economic subservience to the military. Both regimes' respective economies were in constant states of flux. By and large, the existing large engineering companies that existed in those countries became arms of the state. When those arrangements failed to produce enough armaments, they used slave labor to the point the German economy was almost dependent on it towards the end of the war. Both Mussolini and Hitler dropped their much-trumpeted welfare programs when they started diverting too much money from the military.
- Imperialism and Expansionism. Whilst it's contested if Hitler had globalist intentions, he certainly wanted "Lebensraum" for the German people. It doesn't take a genius to surmise that Hitler would've greatly expanded Germany had he been successful. Meanwhile, Mussolini's Pre-WWII military adventures in Ethiopia and Libya were motivated less by an economic need than by a belief that Italy should have an empire because they were a superior race. Underscoring this is the simple fact that Ethiopia possessed no economic resources for Italy to exploit. Whilst many other regimes, Left and Right, have been imperialist and expansionist, this is worth noting because many contemporary Nationalist and far-right movements are very isolationist in wanting to expel foreigners but not expand their borders. Of course, this could change if they're in power and at at the mercy of global politics, but again, that remains to be seen.
DPRK may share superficial similarities with Fascist regimes, but the country paying lip service to democracy and non-imperialism are the reasons the country do not qualify as a Fascist state. Apart from unifying Korea and perhaps destroying the United States, very little suggests they have expansionist aims. They strongly stress self-reliance and independence from the rest of the world. Whether or not this translates into public policy is another question. Also, they are not a Western state. We are discussing a people with an entirely different history and set of cultural assumptions.