대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
The summary of the judgment of innocence.
1. Review of the progress records of the instant case reveals the following facts.
On March 25, 197, the Sungbuk Branch of Seoul District Court (77 Gohap 5) sentenced the defendant guilty of imprisonment with prison labor for three years and suspension of qualifications for a violation of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980; hereinafter referred to as "the Anti-Public Law") and the presidential emergency measures for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter referred to as "Presidential Emergency Measures No. 9").
Accordingly, the defendant and the prosecutor respectively appealed, and the Seoul High Court (No. 77 No. 616) accepted the defendant's unfair argument on the sentencing on June 22, 1977, and reversed the judgment below and sentenced the defendant to a two-year imprisonment and a two-year judgment of suspension of qualification (hereinafter " judgment subject to a retrial").
The defendant appealed, but the Supreme Court (77Do2210) dismissed the appeal on September 13, 197.
Accordingly, the judgment subject to a review was finally affirmed.
On January 5, 2018, the prosecutor filed a request for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial pursuant to Article 424 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 was unconstitutional and invalid.
On January 16, 2018, this Court applied the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, which was unconstitutional and invalid in a judgment subject to a retrial, and thus, decided to commence a retrial on the grounds that there are grounds prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the decision became final and conclusive as it is.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not have committed each of the crimes stated in the facts constituting a crime as stated in the lower judgment.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The Defendant asserts that the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment and three years of suspension of qualification) was excessively unreasonable, and that the amount of the punishment was unreasonable. The prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment was too uneasible and that the amount of the punishment was unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. As to the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9