The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

(1) The Defendants were indicted under the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, as stated in the summary of the facts charged, as the charge of the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9. On February 2, 1979, the said court held the Defendants guilty of both the charges on the Defendants on February 2, 1979, on the following grounds: (a) three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; (b) three years of suspension of qualifications; (c) two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications; (d) two years of suspension of qualifications; and (e) two years and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for Defendant C.

(2) The Defendants and public prosecutors appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court 79No331, and the above court accepted the Defendants’ allegation of unfair sentencing and reversed the judgment of the court below on July 4, 1979, and sentenced the Defendant A to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications, two years of suspension of qualifications, and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications, three years of suspension of execution and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications, and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications to Defendant C and D, respectively.

(3) Of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, Defendant A’s part among the judgment subject to a retrial was withdrawn on July 24, 1979; Defendant B’s part was expired on July 12, 1979; Defendant C’s waiver of right to appeal on July 5, 1979; and Defendant D’s withdrawal of appeal on July 18, 1979, respectively.

B. On March 31, 2011, the Defendants filed the instant request for retrial. On July 4, 2013, this Court rendered a final judgment on the grounds that “The Presidential Emergency Measure (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, May 13, 1975) for the protection of national security and public order (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, May 13, 1975, hereinafter “Emergency Measure No.9”) was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and accordingly, there was a ground for retrial as stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, the Defendants rendered a final judgment on the part of the instant judgment subject to retrial (hereinafter “instant decision on commencing a retrial”), and thereafter, made a legitimate appeal within the appeal period.