beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 29,633,190 among the 69,405,590 and the said money, the amount of KRW 29,633,190 shall be from February 12, 2014, and KRW 39,72.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. After being detained without a warrant on January 5, 1978, Plaintiff A was detained on January 31, 1978 due to the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Measure (Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9, May 13, 1975; hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order.
B. On October 4, 197, 16:0, 16:00 Gwangju City, the Plaintiff, while talking with, and talking with, the F D, G, Dong H, Dong H, Dong I, etc., the president of the former J company, L, who was the president of the former J company, used the foreign currency in the e-mail aircraft to waste the foreign currency to the e-mail aircraft, and used the foreign currency to be prohibited by the national law of that country, L committed a crime of L in Saudi Arabia, and caused L to go against the president of the J company with the knowledge of such fact, and caused K to go from the president of the J company, this was the day on which the N political party’s father, the former wife of K, took advantage of the fact that M had come to do so independently and independently by speaking with M and thus was prosecuted for a will.”
C. On May 31, 1978, the Seoul Criminal District Court found the Defendant guilty on the charges as the whole and sentenced one year and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for one year and six months.
Plaintiff
A. The Seoul High Court appealed this appeal, and the Seoul High Court convicted all of the facts charged on November 17, 1978 by 78No850, but accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and reversed the original judgment and sentenced the suspension of execution for two years and six months in imprisonment for one year and six months.
(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The plaintiff A was released on the same day, and the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive at that time.
Plaintiff
A on April 11, 2014, the Seoul High Court 2014No27 filed a petition for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial.
The Seoul High Court decided to commence a retrial on July 16, 2014, and on October 2, 2014, on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9 was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and thus, “the defendant’s case is not a crime.”