The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. On September 29, 197, the Defendant was indicted for a violation of subparagraph 9 of the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree”) and a violation of military duty evasion charges (Article 77 type No. 151 of the Ordinary Military Council). On September 29, 197, the above court convicted the Defendant of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification.

B. The Defendant appealed against the above judgment (No. 7 of the Army, Military, and Military Branch No. 710 of the Army, Military, and Military Court Decision 77 High Military Court Decision 77 High Military Court Decision 710), and the prosecutor, during the appellate trial, applied for the amendment of the indictment to change the facts charged as stated in paragraph (2) of the following facts charged, and the above court permitted the amendment.

C. The above court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged modified on January 18, 1978 and reversed the judgment of the first instance court, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for two years (hereinafter “the judgment on review”). The Defendant appealed against the above judgment (78Do364), but the appeal was dismissed on March 28, 1978, and the judgment on review became final and conclusive.

After completion of the sentence, the Defendant died, and the Defendant’s refusal to file the instant petition for retrial on April 14, 2011.

Therefore, as long as the Emergency Measure No. 9 was determined to be null and void from the beginning in the Supreme Court en banc Order 201Hu689 Decided January 1, 201, this constitutes “when clear evidence to acknowledge innocence is newly discovered with respect to a person who has been sentenced to a crime of oil” and the investigator in charge at that time deemed that the fact that the investigator in charge committed a crime in the course of performing his/her duties by illegally detaining the defendant was proven to the extent that the final and conclusive judgment was replaced by the fact that the investigator in charge committed a crime in the course of performing his/her duties, and the

2. The defendant's act does not include the defendant's assertion of amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea if the defendant's reason for appeal was written and copied.