Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.
Defendants are not guilty. Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are recognized.
The Defendants were indicted by the Seoul Criminal Court 74 high 160, 175 (Joint), 181 (Joint) and 196 (Joint) as stated in the attached facts of the violation of the National Security Act and the violation of the anti-public law. On July 24, 1974, the above court convicted the Defendants of the above charged facts, and sentenced each year of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications to one year.
The Defendants and the Prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court Decision 74No. 1112. On December 9, 1974, the same court reversed all parts of the judgment of the court below as to the Defendants, and sentenced the Defendants to imprisonment for one year, suspension of qualifications for one year and suspension of execution for three years (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). Thereafter, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive because the Defendants and the Prosecutor did not file a final appeal.
On August 19, 2015, the Defendants filed a petition for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial with the Supreme Court No. 2015 (No. 226).
The court found the Defendants guilty in the judgment subject to a retrial that the Defendants did not inform the investigation authority of the facts charged against the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants’ appearance F was a espionage from E, and that the Defendants did not inform the investigation authority of such facts. As to the facts charged with F’s espionage suspicion in the case of the review against the network F (Seoul High Court Decision 2010 N.h. 83) (Seoul High Court Decision 2010h.h. 83), there was a new evidence to acknowledge the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that the facts charged that F was a espionage, with the knowledge of the fact that F was a espionage, in the case of the GNE review (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 inventory 21 case).
In light of the foregoing, there are grounds for retrial as stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.
A decision to commence a new trial was made, and the decision to commence the new trial was made without any lawful filing of an appeal within the appeal period.