The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. On July 13, 197, the Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court found the Defendant guilty of violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for the first time on July 13, 197 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”). The Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of November 11, 197, and sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for the first time and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). While the Defendant was above, the Supreme Court sentenced the Defendant on January 24, 1978, the Prosecutor dismissed the appeal on October 31, 2017, the Prosecutor filed a request for a retrial on which the judgment subject to a retrial was commenced on October 24, 2017, and the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to re-adjudication the Defendant’s judgment pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Act.

The decision to commence a new trial was finalized because there is no legitimate appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not make the same remarks as indicated in the facts charged.

2) At the time of committing a crime of mental disorder, the person was in a state of mental disorder.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. In a case where an ex officio review of judgment has commenced, the statutes applicable to criminal facts are the statutes at the time of new judgment.

In the event that the law was amended at the time of the judgment subject to new trial, the court shall apply the law to the crime at the time of the judgment for new trial, and if the law was repealed, the court shall render a judgment of acquittal for the crime by applying Article 326, subparagraph

However, even if the penal law was repealed at the time of a new judgment, if the abolition was against the Constitution and has no effect, it constitutes a cause of innocence under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.