A. On April 7, 1977, investigators who belong to the Defendant were not given an opportunity to defend themselves without notifying the summary of the crime without the Plaintiff’s warrant, the grounds for arrest, and the right to appoint a defense counsel on April 7, 197, and the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”).

2) In the course of investigating the Plaintiff’s custody, investigators forced confessions while committing cruel acts such as intimidation and sacrificing, etc.

B. The judgment of conviction and the execution of the sentence 1 Plaintiff A was prosecuted as the charge of violating Emergency Decree No. 9 by the Seoul District Court Sungbuk-do Branching 77Kahap82.

The summary of this paper is as follows: Plaintiff A, who was enrolled in the fourth year of the New Department of Qua college, was on March 31, 197 and the same year.

4. 1. The executive officers of V organizations, such as Defendants R, S, T, U, etc., have prepared a religious confession that criticizes the present government, and instigated them to be announced in the name of V organization;

“.” (2) On September 30, 1977, the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged and sentenced the Plaintiff A to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification. The Seoul High Court, the appellate court, determined that the above sentence is too heavy on February 28, 1978, and sentenced the Plaintiff A two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (hereinafter referred to as “the subject decision for review”). The Seoul High Court, the appellate court, determined that the above sentence is too heavy and sentenced to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (hereinafter referred to as “the subject decision for review”).

(3) On May 27, 1978, the above judgment was dismissed and finalized by Supreme Court Decision 78Do813 Decided May 23, 1978.) Plaintiff A was released on December 27, 1978, while serving in prison according to the sentence sentenced.

C. On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff A filed a petition for a new trial with Seoul High Court Decision 201No104 on the judgment subject to a new trial. On April 24, 2013, the said court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that Emergency Measure No. 9 was unconstitutional or invalid from the beginning, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time. 2) The said court applied to Plaintiff A on June 27, 2013.