대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was a person who had been working as a politician from April 1975 as a politician’s letter from around April 1975:
A. At around 19:00 on June 26, 1978, at the entrance of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mamunmunmun Under, a woman aged 40 years old or older who had been working in the vicinity of his name was previously heard by the President Emergency Decree No. 9 claiming the removal of the new constitution of university students in Seoul Metropolitan City who had been working in the vicinity of his name, and at around 19:30 on the same day, he publicly disseminated the contents of the demonstration in violation of No. 9-1-b and (c) of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 of the Republic of Korea at around 19:30, 1978 to his wife I (e.g., 56 years of age) within the passenger car, and at the same time, he spread the situation
6. At around 18:00 on 29:1, 29:00, she spreads the words of will to East women with no probability that there is students’ mother in front of the Center;
(b) At around 11:30 on June 28, 1978, the year is from the fluoral point adjacent to the So-called Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-dong So-gu to the J at the fluoral point adjacent to the So-called So-called So-called Seo
6. The student parent case of 26. 26. 26. The report was made to the Japanese newspaper.
In addition, the Korean President's Emergency Decree No. 9-1(b) and (c) were publicly disseminated on June 27, 1978 by identifying the contents of the article reported in the Japanese newspapers and the Manice newspapers, which were located in the 10th floor of the Central Daily Building Building in the same location, and were published on June 27, 1978.
2. Determination
A. In a case where the repealed or invalidated penal law is null and void since the beginning of the statute, the statutes to be applied to a case prosecuted by the court for which a new trial was initiated for a case subject to the application of the said statute, are the statutes at the time of a new judgment. Thus, in a case where the statutes at the time of the judgment subject to new trial were repealed, the court shall render a judgment of acquittal for the
However, the court has the law of punishment.