The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as shown in the annexed sheet.

2. Case progress

A. On January 16, 1979, the Defendant, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, was prosecuted for violating the National Security Act (Spys) and violating the anti-public law, and the court rendered a seven-year imprisonment and suspension of qualification against the Defendant, recognizing the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to seven years.

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The Prosecutor and the Defendant appealed to the Seoul High Court 79No227, but the above court dismissed both appeals on May 24, 1979. The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court 79Do1559, but the Supreme Court sentenced the dismissal of appeal on August 31, 1979, which became final and conclusive.

B. On August 27, 1985, the Defendant served in accordance with the judgment subject to a retrial and terminated the execution of punishment.

C. On August 12, 2011, the Defendant rendered a request for a retrial against a judgment subject to a retrial. On July 5, 2012, this Court accepted the Defendant’s request for a retrial on the grounds that “The information of the police station in Gangwon-do and the investigation by investigators of the Defendant constitutes the crime of illegal arrest and confinement under Article 124(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, since the statute of limitations has expired, the above crime constitutes a case where a final judgment under Article 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be obtained, and the judgment subject to a retrial is deemed to constitute a case where an investigator who participated in the investigation based on the public prosecution proves that he/she committed an offense related to his/her duties, and thus, there is a ground for a retrial under Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act.”

3. The gist of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is that the investigators involved in the investigation forced the Defendant to commit the same offense as indicated in the facts charged, and are under investigation into the state of illegal confinement, even though they did not commit the same offense.