The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty.

The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. The Defendant and the Appellant (hereinafter “Defendant”) were indicted of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975; hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order. On January 11, 1979, the Seoul Criminal Court convicted the Defendants of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendant A imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months and suspension of qualifications for one year and six months, and three years and suspension of qualifications for Defendant B, respectively.

(Seoul Criminal Court 78 Gohap663). (b)

The Defendants and the Prosecutor appealed against the above judgment, and appealed as Seoul High Court 79No228, May 21, 1979, and the Seoul High Court accepted the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing and reversed the judgment of the lower court, and sentenced the Defendants A to one year and one year and six months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of qualification suspension, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.

The Defendants renounced the appeal, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 23, 1979.

On February 25, 2011, the Defendants filed the instant request for retrial, and accordingly, the decision on commencing a retrial made on June 5, 2013 by this Court became final and conclusive as it is.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendants 1) In light of the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the Presidential Emergency Decree did not have a provision on punishment, but applied the above penal provision to the Defendants. Thus, the court below erred. The violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree was established when the State’s security or public peace and order was seriously threatened or is likely to be threatened. However, the court below erred by applying the Emergency Decree to the Defendants’ act, which caused or is not likely to cause serious threat to the national security or public order. 2) The court below erred by applying the Emergency Decree.