The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is how much Japan worked in Korea under the influence of alcohol from the main point of D, located in Gunsan-si C on February 13, 1976, around 19:00.

“The head of the State was ambiguous and distorted to spread the fact.”

2. Determination of the original judgment and decision to commence a retrial

A. On April 16, 1976, the Jeonju District Court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and sentenced the Defendant to four years of suspension of execution and three years of suspension of qualification for the purpose of national safety and the protection of public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) by applying Articles 7 and 1(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”), and the prosecutor appealed against the said judgment (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) but the appellate court dismissed the appeal on September 1, 1979 (Seoul High Court No. 76No. 291) and became final and conclusive as it is for the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. On October 24, 2017, the Prosecutor rendered a request for a retrial pursuant to Article 424 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9 was unconstitutional and invalid, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial, which declared a conviction, was based on which there exist grounds for retrial.

On October 27, 2017, there are grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in a judgment subject to a retrial.

On the other hand, the decision to commence the review was made and the decision to commence the review became final and conclusive.

3. The former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980) of the Republic of Korea before its determination was made

The Emergency Measure No. 9, which was issued on the basis of the Emergency Measure stipulated in Article 53 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims, violates the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people, without satisfying the requirements for the Emergency Measure No. 9, and thus, is unconstitutional since it was in violation of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Victims.