Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Shin-soo et al. and 13 others

Seoul High Court Decision 79No154 delivered on May 4, 1979

The motion for retrial of this case is dismissed.

1. Judgment subject to review

According to the records of this case, the defendant, in Seoul High Court Decision 79No154 on May 4, 1979, sentenced to one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications for violating the National Security and Public Order Protection Act (Seoul High Court Decision 79No154 on May 4, 1979). However, the judgment dismissed on July 24, 1979, and the judgment

2. Summary of a claimant for retrial;

Article 53(3) of the former Constitution (amended by Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975; hereinafter the same) provides that “The instant judgment subject to a retrial shall be declared guilty by applying Article 53(1)9 of the former Constitution, which was enacted on May 13, 1975.” Since Article 53 of the former Constitution and Article 9 of the Emergency Decree enacted thereunder are unconstitutional, there are other grounds for a retrial under Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. Determination

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the applicant for a retrial filed an application for adjudication on constitutionality of Article 53 of the Constitution and Article 9 of Emergency Decree No. 9 of the former Constitution. Thus, it is evident that the instant petition for retrial does not constitute “the case where a final judgment of conviction was rendered based on the provisions of the law determined as unconstitutional” under Article 47(3) of

Furthermore, as to whether there is a cause for a retrial under Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial, the Defendant only asserts that there is a cause for a retrial under Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the Defendant did not submit all arguments and evidentiary materials on the grounds for a retrial under Article 420 of

Therefore, the petition for retrial of this case is unlawful because it merely argues that it does not constitute grounds for retrial.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the request for retrial of this case is dismissed under Article 433 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Sung-song-dong (Presiding Judge)