The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the chief of the South Korean branch office, sold part of the D 111 of the Jeju High School, etc., on which a photograph of the Nacheon School, which was written with the “Refluence of the Democratic Constitutional Court Restoration” card from Apr. 1975 to Aug. 2, 1975, and a photograph of the Republic of Korea, such as a photo of the students of the Korean New School, which was attached with the title “Refluence against the establishment of a new constitutional association,” or a photograph of claiming, instigating, or promoting the amendment, was printed, and carried for sale of the remaining 19 copies, thereby violating the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9.

2. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged in view of the judgment subject to review and the decision to commence a retrial.

A. On December 29, 1975, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for two years, suspension of qualifications for two years, and a conviction of two years for violation of the Presidential Emergency Measures (hereinafter “Emergency Measures No. 9”) for the purpose of national security and protection of public order at the Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “Emergency Measures No. 9”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as of January 6, 1976 as the lapse of the appeal period.

B. A prosecutor filed a request for retrial on October 19, 2017, and this court rendered a request for retrial on February 21, 2018, and there are grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

In light of the above, the decision to commence a new trial was finalized at that time.

3. In principle, in a case where the law applicable to the facts constituting an offense was repealed in a case for which a new trial for judgment was commenced, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered by applying Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in a case where the penal law retroactively loses its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court or the court declares that the penal law becomes unconstitutional, a judgment of innocence should be rendered on the defendant's case for which a public prosecution was instituted by applying the pertinent law. Thus, the penal law was repealed at the