손해배상
1. The Defendant: (a) to Plaintiff A, KRW 79,878,00, KRW 16,000, KRW 16,000 and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff B, C, D, and E.
On June 26, 1978, the plaintiff A, who was convicted of the plaintiff A, was dissolved by the police force at around 19:30 on June 26, 1978 while attending the Sejong Cultural Center of the International University and the administrative department of the International University. On June 14:00 on June 26, 1978, the plaintiff A, who was found guilty of the plaintiff A, was planned to hold a demonstration against the U.S. Constitution that became a main agent by students, etc. of the Seoul National University. On July 12, 1978, a detention warrant was issued on July 12, 1978.
Plaintiff
A was charged with violating the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) by asserting the abolition of a new constitution by going beyond the relief and demonstration. A was charged with violating the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”). < Amended by Act No. 3190, Oct. 3, 1978; Act No. 3090, Oct. 3, 1978; Act No. 3090, Oct. 3, 1978; Act No. 3090, Oct. 3, 200).
Plaintiff
A was convicted on November 7, 1978 of imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and suspension of qualifications for 2 years in Seoul District Court 78 Gohap452, 633(Joint).
On February 26, 1979, the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 79No19), which was appealed by the prosecutor and the plaintiff A, sentenced the plaintiff A to imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months and suspension of qualifications for 1 year and 1 year, and the final appeal period was confirmed to be the Doctri
Plaintiff
A was released on July 17, 1979 by suspension of execution of punishment.
Plaintiff
On January 20, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for retrial against the above high court judgment as the plaintiff's new judgment and criminal compensation against A was issued on January 20, 2012.
The above court is not guilty on the ground that the facts charged against the plaintiff A, who was prosecuted by applying Emergency Decree No. 9, which was invalidated on September 24, 2013, constitutes "when the defendant's case does not constitute a crime" under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.