대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the decision subject to review and the decision to commence a retrial.
A. On August 2, 1976, the Defendant was indicted on the charges as shown in the attached Form 76 high 67,188 for the Seoul District Court’s Yeongdeungpo Branch. On August 2, 1976, the above court sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year and suspension of qualification by applying Articles 7, 2, and 151(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057, Dec. 295) and Article 151(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057, Dec. 29, 1995).
B. On December 2, 1976, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed, and the Seoul High Court reversed the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant and suspended the sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications) against the Defendant (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
(c)
On October 29, 2017, the prosecutor filed a request for a retrial for the benefit of the defendant in accordance with Article 424 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
On February 19, 2018, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that there was a reason that there was a reason for re-examination under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a new trial. The decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive as it is with
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant did not have committed the same crime as stated in the facts charged, except for the crime of concealing the offender, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below.
The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution and one year of suspended qualification) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unfasible and unfair.
3. Ex officio determination
A. Determination on the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 (1) unconstitutionality of Emergency Decree No. 9.