The defendant shall be innocent.

A. On October 7, 1977, the Defendant was prosecuted with the Seoul Criminal Court (77 Gohap 585) as the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9, and the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the above charges on the Defendant on October 7, 197, and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the Defendant by applying Articles 7 and 1(a) of the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) for the purpose of protecting the National Security and the public order.

B. The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed to the above judgment at the Seoul High Court (No. 77 No. 1671). On February 24, 1978, the above court accepted the Defendant’s unfair argument on sentencing and reversed the lower judgment, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and suspension of qualifications for one year and six months (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). Accordingly, although the Defendant is standing, the Supreme Court (78Do718) dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal on May 9, 1978, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissing the Defendant’s final appeal.

(c)

On November 22, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial. On August 22, 2018, this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that there was a reason for re-examination under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and the said decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit a crime as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, three years of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea ( October 27, 1980), which states that emergency action No. 9 is unconstitutional.