2. A series of acts performed by B, etc. from the military disturbance on December 12, 1979 to the cancellation of emergency martial law on May 17, 1980 upon the commencement of a declaration of the extension of emergency martial law on May 17, 1980 constitutes a crime of destruction of constitutional order as an insurrection (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Do376, Apr. 17, 197); “an act related to the May 18 Democratization Movement” or “an act preventing or opposing a crime of destruction of constitutional order that occurred before or after December 12, 1979 and May 18, 1980” is not a justifiable act for the existence of the Constitution and the protection of constitutional order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1239 Decided July 13, 2001). In light of the timing, motive, purpose, object, means of use, result, etc. of the act committed by the defendant as stated in the facts charged of this case, the act committed by the defendant against or opposing the act related to the May 18 Democratization and the crime of destruction of constitutional order that occurred before and after December 12, 1979 and May 18, 1980, is deemed as a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act for the purpose of protecting the existence of the Constitution and the constitutional order.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case against the defendant constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by a judgment of not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.