국가안전과공공질서의수호를위한대통령긴급조치위반
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty.
1. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts are recognized.
A. The Defendants were indicted on the charges as set out in the following. In the case of the Yeongdeungpo Branch of the Seoul District Court Decision 78Da315, 79 Gohap12, March 7, 1979, the Seoul District Court convicted all of the charges, and sentenced the Defendant A to two years of imprisonment, suspension of qualifications, two years of imprisonment, and suspension of qualifications, and two years of suspension of qualifications to Defendant B, by applying the National Security and the Presidential Emergency Decree for the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”).
B. As the Defendants and prosecutors appealed, the Seoul High Court sentenced Defendant A to one year and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for Defendant A, two years of imprisonment, and one year of suspension of qualifications for Defendant B, and one year of imprisonment with labor and one year of suspension of qualifications for Defendant B (hereinafter “Review Decision”). The decision subject to review was finalized around that time as the Defendants did not appeal.
C. Since the Defendants apparent that Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional, the Defendants asserted that there exist grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to retrial.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) No. 9 of the misunderstanding of legal principles did not meet the requirements to take an emergency measure under the Constitution, or a long time has passed, and a penal provision that cannot be prescribed as an emergency measure is against the Constitution. All citizens are unconstitutional because they have the freedom to criticize conscience and press in accordance with the Constitution, and thus are unconstitutional or has its effect, and all the Defendants’ actions are against social norms or legitimate acts. Thus, they do not constitute a crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unfair sentencing (Defendant A: two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification, two years of suspension, Defendant B’s imprisonment, one year and six months of suspension of qualifications, and two years of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uneasible.
3. Determination.