The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

(1) As indicated in the summary of the facts charged, the Defendants were indicted as the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, and the above court found the Defendants guilty on July 29, 1978, on the following grounds: (a) five years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for the Defendants and three years of suspension of qualifications for the Defendants; and (b) three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for the Defendants B.

(2) The Defendants and the prosecutor appealed to the above judgment as Seoul High Court 78No1082. On November 24, 1978, the above court rejected the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, but reversed the judgment of the court below by accepting the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and did not constitute a crime as stated in the summary of the attached facts charged (not guilty part). However, on the ground that the guilty part and the crime committed an ordinary concurrence or a combination of crimes were not acquitted in the order.

Attached Form

As to the summary of the facts charged (the part concerning the charge), the defendant A sentenced two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification to the defendant A, two years of suspended sentence to the defendant B and one year of suspended sentence to the defendant B, and one year of suspended qualification.

(3) The Defendants appealed by Supreme Court Decision 78Do3137 regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial but the final appeal was dismissed on February 13, 1979 and became final and conclusive.

B. On February 17, 2011, the Defendants filed the instant request for retrial, and this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the guilty portion of the Defendants among the judgment subject to retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial of this case”) on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9 on June 10, 2013, was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and thus, there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The said decision to commence a retrial has no legitimate filing of appeal within the appeal period.