대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant, on August 1978, was 17:00, at the third floor office of the building in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul at around 17:00, “G was making an outer stay in H, and was not on official seat while coming back to the margin of the I.D.
“In the end, the language of the will was boomed and disseminated.”
2. Determination of the original judgment and decision to commence a retrial
A. On June 1, 1979, the Yeongdeungpo Branch of the Seoul District Court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and sentenced the Defendant to ten months of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications for the purpose of national security and public order protection (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) by applying Articles 9 (7) and 1 (1) (a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”). After that, the Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court, dismissed both the prosecutor and the Defendant’s appeal on September 19, 1979, became final and conclusive (Seoul High Court No. 79No. 840). On December 26, 2017, the Prosecutor filed a request for a retrial pursuant to Article 42 subparag. 12 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the judgment subject to a retrial was unconstitutional and void, based on which the judgment subject to a retrial was based.
On February 26, 2018, there are grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in a judgment subject to a retrial.
On the other hand, the decision to commence the review was made and the decision to commence the review became final and conclusive.
3. Before the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of October 27, 1980) was amended on the basis of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea;
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 exceeding the bounds of the purpose without satisfying the requirements of the Emergency Measure, and by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people. Thus, prior to the cancellation or invalidation of Emergency Measure No. 9, this is the Constitution.