The part against the Defendants is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty.

A. On February 26, 1979, Daegu District Court (78 Gohap 543) stated in the separate sheet against the Defendants on February 26, 1979, the Presidential Emergency Measure for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9Ra”).

3) Defendant A and B sentenced each of the short-term eight months of imprisonment, the long-term one year of suspension of qualification, and the suspension of qualification to Defendant C as guilty of the facts charged of the violation.

B. The Defendants and the Prosecutor appealed against this and filed an appeal with the Daegu High Court 79No276 on July 5, 1979. The above court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the Defendants’ punishment was heavier than that of the court below on July 5, 1979, and sentenced Defendant A and B for a short term of six months, a long term of eight months, suspension of qualifications, eight months, and suspension of qualifications to Defendant C, and eight months, respectively (hereinafter the judgment subject to a retrial subject to a retrial). The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive at that time

(c)

On October 27, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for re-examination, and this court rendered a decision to commence re-examination on January 29, 2018 on the ground that there was a reason for re-examination under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the part of the judgment subject to re-examination against the Defendants.

The decision to commence the above review was finalized as it is, because there was no legitimate filing of appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine are merely made after the demonstration team without any purpose, and the Defendant did not know at all the organizer in charge of the demonstration. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention.

In addition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine under subparagraph 9 of the Emergency Measures Act, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (short-term eight months of imprisonment, long-term one year of suspension of qualifications, one year of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.

B. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine under subparagraph 9 of the Emergency Measures Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(ii)..