반공법위반 등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.
A. The Defendants were indicted under the jurisdiction of the Chuncheon District Court 70Da1637 as the facts charged as shown in the separate sheet.
On December 29, 1970, the above court convicted Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C of all facts charged and sentenced each of seven years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification, seven years of imprisonment, four years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification to Defendant D, respectively.
B. The Defendants appealed as Seoul High Court 71No124 regarding the above judgment.
On May 1, 1971, the above court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and sentenced the defendant A, B, and C to the punishment of imprisonment for three years and six months and suspension of qualification for each of three years and six months, and the punishment for two years and six months and suspension of qualification for the defendant D, respectively.
(hereinafter referred to as "the subject decision for review"). (c)
The Defendants appealed again on July 27, 1971, but all appeals were dismissed, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on the same day.
All of the Defendants were dead, and the applicant for retrial is the spouse, lineal relatives or siblings of the deceased Defendants, and constitutes the person entitled to request a retrial under Article 424 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
E. On June 10, 2011, the applicant for a retrial filed with this court for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial under Article 2011No93.
On December 18, 2013, the court recognized the fact that the Defendants were illegally arrested and detained and detained, and that the Defendants committed adviser and cruel acts in the course of investigation. The crime of the investigator’s duties related to the investigator’s duties is not subject to final and conclusive judgment upon the completion of the statute of limitations, but it decided to commence a new trial in accordance with Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act by deeming that the crime was proved
The decision to commence a new trial became final and conclusive as an appeal period.
2. The lower judgment erred by misapprehending the following facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Defendants are boarding K and fishing boats.