대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. On July 13, 1978, around 15:10 on July 13, 1978, the Defendant distorted the facts that “E the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right to enjoy the right,
2. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts can be acknowledged.
A. In the instant case on October 10, 1979, 332, the instant court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, suspension of qualifications, and two years of suspension of qualifications, by applying Articles 7 and 1(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree (amended by Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 on May 13, 1975, the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 67 on December 7, 1979, and the Presidential Notice No. 9 on December 7, 1979; hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order. (b) Although the Prosecutor appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed on May 17, 1979, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive at that time.
(c)
On October 26, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for a retrial against an original judgment pursuant to Article 424 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that “The grounds for review stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act exist in the judgment subject to a retrial, since Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional or invalid,” which was based on which the judgment of conviction was rendered.
(d)
On May 28, 2018, this Court decided to commence a new trial on the grounds that there are grounds prescribed by Article 75(7) of the Constitutional Court Act and Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a new trial, and the above decision became final and conclusive.
3. Determination
A. In the event of a serious crisis that is unable to cope with the means of exercising power in accordance with the constitutional order at the time of the unconstitutionality of Emergency Decree No. 9, the president's decision on the national emergency power which is exercised to ensure the existence of the nation should be respected. However, this state's emergency power should be respected.