대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Review of the progress records of the instant case reveals the following facts.
A. The Defendant was prosecuted as the charges stated in the Attachment (Seoul Criminal Court 78 Gohap 663). On January 11, 1979, the above court found the Defendant guilty of the above charges, and sentenced the Defendant to one year and suspension of qualification for the Defendant by applying the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 7, 2, and 1-b for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”).
B. The defendant and the prosecutor appealed against this.
On May 21, 1979, the court accepted an appeal regarding the defendant's unfair sentencing and reversed the judgment of the court below, and again convicted the defendant of the above facts charged, and sentenced the defendant one year of imprisonment (two years of suspended execution) and one year of suspended qualification by applying the Emergency Decree No. 9-7, No. 2 and No. 1-b (hereinafter "the judgment subject to a retrial"). (C).
As the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal all, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive at that time.
2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
A. The former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended on October 27, 1980 by the Constitution No. 9 of the Republic of Korea prior to the amendment of the Emergency Decree No. 9 on October 27, 1980)
B. The Emergency Measure No. 9, which was issued based on the Emergency Measure stipulated in Article 53 of the Act, violates the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by failing to meet the requirements of the Emergency Measure, and by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people. Thus, even before the Emergency Measure No. 9 was cancelled or invalidated, it is unconstitutional and invalid as it is in violation of the unconstitutionality. Furthermore, in light of the current Constitution, which has the provision that guarantees fundamental rights infringed by Emergency Measure No. 9, it is apparent that the unconstitutionality is invalidated even in light of the current Constitution, which has the provision that guarantees fundamental rights infringed by Emergency Measure No. 9 (see Supreme Court Order No. 2011, Apr. 18, 2011).