Part 9 of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 2 of the ruling shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

A. On June 16, 1978, the Defendant was indicted for the violation of public law and the charge of the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, Daejeon District Court 78 Gohap15, and the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for two years and six months and suspension of qualification for two years and six months.

B. As to the above judgment, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealeded to Seoul High Court 78No. 903. On September 21, 1978, the above court accepted the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc., and reversed the judgment of the court below and acquitted the Defendant of violation of public law among the facts charged, and rendered a judgment of one year imprisonment and one year suspension of qualification for the remainder of the facts charged (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).

On September 29, 1978, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive after the lapse of the period of appeal.

(c)

On March 12, 2018, the Prosecutor Park Jong-hoon rendered a request for retrial on March 12, 2018. On April 3, 2018, this Court rendered a decision to commence retrial on the guilty part among the decisions subject to retrial on April 3, 2018 on the ground that there was a ground that the Criminal Procedure Act was re-examination

After that, the decision to commence the above review was confirmed as it is, even though the appeal period was too excessive.

2. Inasmuch as the scope of the judgment of this court is an emergency remedy procedure recognized only for the benefit of the defendant against the final judgment of conviction (Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act), the judgment of innocence cannot be subject to retrial. As such, the part of the facts charged in the judgment subject to retrial against the public law among the facts charged in the instant case that was rendered and rendered not guilty in the judgment subject to retrial

Therefore, the scope of the review of this case is limited to the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 of the judgment of the court below.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two and half years of imprisonment and two and half years of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

4. Summary of the facts charged in this case (Article 2-2 of the judgment of the court below)