The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

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

1. According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. The Defendants were indicted on the charges as indicated in the separate sheet. In the case on October 12, 1977, the Yeongdeungpo Branch of the Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 77Rahap109 decided Oct. 12, 197, the Defendants convicted of the above charges and sentenced the Defendants to three years of imprisonment and three years of suspension of qualification, respectively, by applying the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”).

B. Following the appeal filed by the Defendants, the lower judgment was reversed in Seoul High Court Decision 77No1771 delivered on February 23, 1978, and the Defendant A sentenced two years and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualification to Defendant B, two years and two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification to Defendant B, respectively (hereinafter “the review judgment”). After that, the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendants’ appeal against the Defendants, and the judgment subject to a review became final and conclusive on May 9, 1978.

C. On July 23, 2013, the Defendants filed the instant request for reexamination. This Court rendered a decision to commence reexamination on October 14, 2013 on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9, supra, becomes null and void from the beginning on October 14, 2013, and rendered a decision to commence reexamination as stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the decision to commence reexamination became final and conclusive as it is, since there was no legitimate filing

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants (1) did not commit the same crime as indicated in the facts charged.

(2) The lower court’s determination on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Examining ex officio prior to the determination of the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion, the statutes applicable to criminal facts in the case where a new trial has commenced are the statutes at the time of new judgment.

Therefore, if the law at the time of the judgment subject to a retrial is amended, the court shall apply the law at the time of the judgment.