국가안전과공공질서의수호를위한대통령긴급조치위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Of the facts charged in the instant case.
1. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.
A. The Defendant was prosecuted on the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. In the Seoul Criminal District Court case on December 28, 1978, the Seoul Criminal Court convicted the Defendant of all the charges and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year and one year and six months and one year and six months of suspension of qualification, on the ground that each of the above charges is concurrent crimes, with the application of the National Security and the Presidential Emergency Measure (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act aimed at protecting public order.
B. As the Defendant appealed, the Seoul High Court sentenced on May 11, 1979 that one year of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the Defendant was sentenced to one year (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) and one year of suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment on review”). The judgment subject to review became final and conclusive at that time because the Defendant did not appeal.
C. On April 28, 2011, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the instant judgment subject to a new trial with this Court Decision 201No72, and on May 29, 2013, this court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the ground that the Emergency Decree No. 9 applied in the instant case is unconstitutional, and thus, it is obvious that the Emergency Decree No. 9 applied in the instant case was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the decision to commence a new trial was rendered based on the determination that there was a ground for a new trial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment for a short term, one year and six months of maximum term, and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.
3. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, this paper examined ex officio.
A. In the event of a serious crisis that is unable to cope with by the means of exercising power according to the constitutional order at ordinary times as to whether Emergency Measure No. 9 was unconstitutional.