The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

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

A. The Defendant was prosecuted on the charges as indicated in the Attachment. In the case on September 28, 1977, the Yeongdeungpo Branch of the Seoul District Court rendered a judgment of conviction on the charge, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment and three years of suspension of qualification by applying the Presidential Emergency Decree for the national security and the protection of public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”).

B. As the defendant and the prosecutor appealed, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below in the case of 77No1673 on December 28, 197, and sentenced the defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment and one year and six months of suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the above judgment was final and conclusive on March 14, 1978 by the Supreme Court's dismissal of appeal.

C. On May 26, 2011, the Defendant filed the instant request for reexamination. This court rendered a decision to commence reexamination on May 13, 201 on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9, supra, becomes null and void from the beginning of May 13, 2013, and thus, the grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act were deemed to exist, and the decision to commence reexamination became final and conclusive as is, since no legitimate appeal

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) The Defendant’s act of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not constitute a violation of Emergency Measure No. 9, and also violates the Constitution No. 9 of the Republic of Korea. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty by applying the Emergency Measure No.

(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 the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the statutes applicable to criminal facts in a case where a new trial was commenced are the statutes at the time of retrial.

Therefore, the court has changed the law at the time of the judgment for review.