The guilty part shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment on the acquittal.

A. The Defendant was prosecuted as a charge of violating the National Security Act, violating the anti-public law, and attempted espionage. The Defendant was prosecuted as the Seoul Criminal Court 74 Gohap 426, Seoul Criminal Court. On November 4, 1974, the above court found the Defendant guilty of both the remaining charges except for the attempted espionage, and sentenced the Defendant to 12 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for 12 years and forfeiture.

B. The defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment, and the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on March 18, 1974 on the grounds of heavy sentencing, and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for 8 years, suspension of qualification for 8 years, and forfeiture (Seoul High Court Decision 74No 1556).

Accordingly, the defendant and the prosecutor were standing the defendant, and the Supreme Court had commenced the commission of the attempted espionage on June 24, 1975.

However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court (Supreme Court Decision 75Do1214).

After the reversal, this court reversed the judgment of the court below as guilty on September 26, 1975, and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years, suspension of qualification for 12 years and forfeiture (Seoul High Court Decision 75No905, hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). E. Although the defendant is standing, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal on December 23, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 75Do3186, Supreme Court Decision 75Do3186) and became final and conclusive as it is for the judgment subject to a retrial.

F. As the defendant's second sentence, B is the defendant's mental and physical state in which the defendant has no ability to discern things due to the current co-existence of illness, and thus, it constitutes the claimant for reexamination as stipulated in Article 424 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On November 9, 2016, there is a reason for re-examination under Article 420 subparagraph 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The petition for retrial of this case was filed.

(g) this.