대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty.
The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the case.
As stated in the summary of the facts charged, the Defendants were indicted for violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 of May 13, 1975 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for each of the six years and six years suspension of qualification for the Defendants and the Defendant B, and five years for each of the five years and suspension of qualification for the Defendants C, respectively.
On April 2, 1977, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and reversed the judgment of the lower court, and sentenced Defendant A and Defendant B with four years of imprisonment and four years of qualification suspension, three years of imprisonment and three years of qualification suspension, respectively (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), and on July 26, 197, the final appeal was dismissed, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
On the other hand, the Defendants asserted that there exists a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial since Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional, and that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since Emergency Measure No. 9 of March 5, 2014 was invalid from the beginning, the Defendants decided that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the decision to commence retrial became final and conclusive as it
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The Defendants’ Emergency Decree No. 9 of the misunderstanding of the legal principles is not only null and void in violation of the Constitution, but also the Defendants’ aforementioned actions are legitimate acts, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on legitimate acts under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing.