The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The Defendant was charged with the charge indicated in the attached Form 78 high 257, 259, 79 high Gohap 10 as the Seoul District Court’s Yeongdeungpo Branch. On February 24, 1979, the above court held on the charge as follows: (a) Articles 7 and 1 of the Presidential Emergency Measures for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measures No. 9”).

(b).

(d)

The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a short term of ten months, a long term of one year, and a suspension of qualification for the defendant.

B. On June 21, 1979, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on June 21, 1979, and sentenced the defendant to two years of suspended execution, suspension of qualifications for ten years, and one year of suspension of qualifications for the defendant (79No 418, hereinafter “the judgment subject to original judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(c)

On October 31, 2017, the prosecutor filed a request for a retrial for the benefit of the defendant in accordance with Article 424 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On May 3, 2018, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that there was a reason that there was a reason for re-examination under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a new trial. The decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive as it is with the intention

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant did not have participated in the demonstration, such as the description of paragraph (2) of the facts charged, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the facts.

2) No. 9 of the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and emergency measures are effective, and the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged even if the Defendant’s act constituted a lawful act and did not constitute a crime.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (short-term 10 months of imprisonment, long-term 1 year of suspension of qualifications and 1 year of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Violation of the legal principle of the defendant.