The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is engaged in agriculture, determined that he/she would participate in the Gwangju situation in accordance with the conspiracy of G around 15:00 on May 22, 1980, and that the Defendant and H are waiting for a vehicle before I school by admitting the Defendant and H. However, on May 22, 1980, he/she was waiting for a vehicle before I school. On the L truck belonging to K, which he/she was boarding his/herJ at around 18:00, he/she was waiting for a vehicle before I school. On his/her direction with J, “M release D.”, “e., removal of emergency martial law” and “S.” are going to perform political relief, such as removal of political relief, and carried out as his/her hand, while he/she was carrying out a demonstration with the Defendant as his/her hand.

(a) At around 22:30 on the same day, D and B appear in the front of the Magyeong-gu Magdong-gu Magyeong-gu Magdong-gu Magdong-gu Magdong-gu, P, and the Defendant J, C, N, E, H, H, and F are each listed in the above new Magdong-gu, and damage 15 copies of the new Magdong-gu Magdong-gu and the wall g

B. At around 22:50 on the same day, he/she entered a hole for the management of the Pwho Lake-gun O located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and took place an amount equivalent to KRW 8,000 at the market price, such as tobacco, cattle, and bean, and made a threat to each item held by C, and made intimidation, such as by making payments for the above food, thereby impairing the order and peace of the members of the Pwho-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Shin-gun.

2. Determination

A. A series of acts committed by Q Q, etc. in relation to the May 18 Democratization Movement after he/she neglected the military command on December 12, 1979, constitutes a crime of disturbance under the Military Criminal Act and a crime of destruction of constitutional order as a crime of insurrection under the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Do376 delivered on April 17, 197). On the other hand, whether an act constitutes “act related to May 18 Democratization” under Article 4(1) of the Special Act on the 5.18 Democratization Movement, etc. or “act preventing or opposing the act of destroying constitutional order that occurred before and after May 18, 1980” shall be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account the time, time, purpose and object of the act, means of use, and result.