The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.

A. On December 21, 1978, in Gwangju District Court Decision 78 Gohap170, 200, the Presidential Emergency Measures (hereinafter “Emergency Measures”) for the Protection of National Security and Public Order was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and suspension of qualifications for the Defendant.

B. On February 27, 1979, the judgment of the court below was reversed on February 27, 1979 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years, three years of suspended execution, and two years of suspension of qualification against the defendant (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive without filing a final appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

C. On May 2, 2011, the Defendant filed the instant request for retrial, and accordingly, this Court rendered a final and conclusive decision on September 26, 2013, as is, the final and conclusive decision on retrial rendered on September 26, 2013.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, this paper examines ex officio whether the Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional.

The Emergency Measure No. 9, which was issued on the basis of the Emergency Measure No. 53 of the U.S. Constitution, infringes on the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose without satisfying the requirements for its issuance. Thus, prior to the cancellation or invalidation of Emergency Measure No. 9, it is unconstitutional and invalid as it is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and further, it is clear that it is unconstitutional in light of the current Constitution

(See en banc Order 201Hu689 dated April 18, 2013).