Around January 10, 1972, the investigation and trial network D with respect to the network D (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was conducted without a warrant by an investigator belonging to the Busan Northern Police Station, and was investigated as an alleged violation of anti-public law, such as “E and F supported by praiseing and aiding in the activities of North Korea, which are anti-government organizations, and thereby benefiting anti-government organizations.”

A detention warrant against the deceased was issued on January 18, 1972 and executed on January 20, 1972.

On January 29, 1972, the deceased was sent to the Busan District Prosecutors' Office. On February 17, 1972, the deceased was prosecuted by Busan District Court 72 Gohap102 on the charge of violating the Antipublic Law. On July 6, 1972, the above court sentenced the deceased to two years of imprisonment and five years of suspension of qualification for the violation of the antipublic law.

(2) The deceased and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the judgment of the court below”). On October 19, 1972, the court reversed the judgment of the court of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing and sentenced the deceased to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for one year, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 27, 1972.

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The Deceased was committed on January 10, 1972 with the police on January 10, 1972, and was detained for a total of 179 days until he was released after being sentenced to a suspended sentence on July 6, 1972.

On May 20, 2008, upon the request of the spouse G of the deceased F who was tried as co-defendant in the case subject to review, the committee for reorganization of the past history for the truth of the verdict of not guilty against the deceased, decided the commencement of the investigation and conducted the investigation. On July 21, 2009, the committee for mediation of the past history was found to have committed cruel acts such as assault and water adviser against the co-defendant in the case subject to review including E and F, and received false confession from them.

Since the fact that there was a violation of human rights in the above case has been discovered, the State has tried to review the judgment in order to restore the damage and reputation of victims and their families.